State Sen. Al Mansell says he never really intended to pursue sweeping legislation that critics called a bald attack on local governments' land-use planning.

The 80-page bill drafted by developers, SB170, was meant to get Utah cities' attention. Now that Mansell has it, he says he will revise or replace the original draft - parts he acknowledges were "way over the top."

Think of the legislation as a "report card" prepared by developers, Mansell said.

"We have cities that are quite notorious for violating the land-use restrictions in the law," he said Tuesday. "I decided to put this out there and let the cities see how unhappy their customers are with them."

As originally written, Mansell's bill would have limited cities' ability to change developers' plans for their property. "Public clamor" and limiting traffic congestion and sprawl could not have been considered. Local governments could not have zoned property in a way that "materially diminishes the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the owner or deprives the owner of all economically viable uses of the property." And the legislation would have barred cities from including staff as overhead costs when charging impact fees.

In addition, cities said the first version could have prohibited them from zoning for open space, allowed sexually oriented businesses in neighborhoods and ended preservation of historical buildings and homes.

Although Mansell's original bill had been scheduled for a hearing later this week, he said that will be canceled. In his new or amended legislation, the senator still plans to require cities to respond quickly to development applications, require cities to use "certified" estimates when setting impact fees and force local governments to strictly follow land-use ordinances and zoning master plans.

"If a city writes an ordinance, they should follow that ordinance," Mansell said.

A commercial real estate broker, Mansell said he agreed to sponsor the initial measure to make cities aware of developers' angst.

He said the Utah League of Cities and Towns declined to meet with him and the coalition of developers behind the bill, including Ivory Homes and Hutchings, Baird and Jones, a law firm representing Anderson Development.

Anderson Development has sued several cities in an effort to force its development plans.

Utah League of Cities and Towns Director Ken Bullock says it's the other way around: Mansell and the developers bypassed local governments when writing the bill. League members first got a copy of SB170 last week. Bullock says Mansell is using legislative resources to promote a now-meaningless "message bill."

"Is it any wonder why the public has a general distrust of government?" Bullock asked. "No city does everything perfectly. Nobody's saying there aren't concerns. But it's how you address them. And addressing them in a message bill is counterproductive. It puts barriers up where you don't need them."

Mansell's bill is being stripped of the most-controversial items, explained Chris Kyler, who lobbies for Utah's Realtors. Items that would have curtailed restrictions on hillsides, zoning for aesthetics and changing city decisions from legislative to administrative - a move that would have blocked almost all resident referendums on land use - "are all out of the bill," Kyler said.

Instead, developers are now hoping to "get some due process and fairness," Kyler added. If they do, "we're happy."

City and county governments were pushing to defeat the original bill.

"The intent that drove the bill made many of us quite nervous from the start," said Provo Mayor Lewis Billings. "It didn't reflect anyone's view or voice except the developers."

Salt Lake City Councilwoman Jill Remington Love acknowledged cities can do more to improve the development process. But she hopes Mansell's new version continues to give zoning powers to city councils.

"That's where the public process is," she said.

---

Tribune reporters Heather May, Jacob Santini and Todd Hollingshead contributed to this story.

What's left of SB170

Notice: Cities must tell landowners of zoning changes that will impact their property.

Clocks: Cities will be given timelines for project reviews that must be met.

Disclosure: City reports have to be given to developers three days before public hearings.

Accounting: Cities must track impact fees to ensure their proper use.

Rules: Cities must follow their own zoning ordinances and general plans.