4. Strategies to Expedite Affordable Housing Development Review
In 2024, key stakeholders from local and tribal governments, developers, and others were engaged to understand challenges and opportunities to expedite review of applications to increase the supply and variety of housing in Colorado communities. The strategies identified during this process are presented in this section of the Fast Track Review Guidance and summarized in the table below. This should not be considered an exhaustive list of strategies, and DOLA encourages local governments and developers to collaborate in developing additional innovative methods to meet the intent of the fast track requirements in Proposition 123 (Prop. 123). Examples of Colorado communities that have implemented some of these strategies are presented in Section 5 of this Guidance.
NOTE: Although each of these strategies can help speed up development review, not all of them will satisfy the Prop.123 requirements for creation of a Fast Track Review Process. Please refer to Section 2 (Legal Requirements) of this Guidance.
4.1 Strategies Overview
Additional Trainings
4.2 Strategies
A. Planning Process and Zoning Reform
(1.) Affordable Housing Action Plan
The process of creating a Housing Action Plan typically follows the completion of a Housing Needs Assessment that documents local housing needs in detail. After understanding the local housing needs, the Housing Action Plan identifies strategies to address housing challenges. Once local leadership has agreed on the goals and priorities in a Housing Action Plan, it provides clear guidance to staff, developers, and other partners. Proposed housing projects that align with the goals outlined in a community’s Housing Action Plan should experience a smoother entitlement process. This guiding document can also highlight incentives available for projects that meet certain criteria and help a community achieve local priorities.
(2.) Code Assessment and Update
This strategy begins with an internal evaluation of the local government land use regulations to identify standards and provisions that are discouraging or preventing the production of needed types of housing. The result of the assessment is then followed by updates to the regulations to simplify the production of those types of needed housing. If possible, draft standards that are clear and objective enough to allow additional administrative approvals for housing projects that meet those standards, rather than requiring public hearings prior to approval. An update may be targeted to only select code sections or a larger, comprehensive overhaul of the code.
(3.) Development Review Process Audit and Improvement
To improve the efficiency of development review procedures, the local government can map each step in the process and the time required to complete each step, and then evaluate the need for each step, the level of application detail that should be required at that stage, and the most efficient way to complete the review at that stage. Unnecessary steps should be eliminated, and steps that address the same or similar topics should be consolidated if possible. For this effort to be successful, all stakeholders, including external referral agencies, need to be involved.
Moving from a manual to an electronic application submittal, permitting, and tracking system can be an important part of a streamlined and efficient process for many communities, but local communities should not underestimate the time needed to configure and troubleshoot digital systems so they meet the needs of both internal staff and external referral agencies. Some communities refer to “Six Sigma”, “Lean methodologies”, or similar process improvement tools as ways to assess process improvements using data-driven tools and techniques.
(4.) Administrative or Planning Commission Approval
Local land use regulations often allow some new residential projects to be approved administratively, while others require one or more public hearings before approval. By allowing affordable housing projects to be approved administratively, the overall review process can be shortened and predictability for applicants enhanced. In many cases, possible concerns about the height, scale, operation, or impacts of new residential projects can be addressed through objective standards applied administratively rather than requiring public hearings to discuss potential concerns for each project independently. Alternatively, if a residential project currently requires approval by the elected governing body, the community could decide to let the Planning Commission be the final decision maker, which often shortens the approval process by one or two months while also reducing uncertainty for the developer. As with other strategies, DOLA encourages extensive community dialogue and collaboration to develop community support for these processes.
(5.) Intergovernmental Agreements
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) are a tool for establishing cooperative planning activities across government entities, which can include municipalities, counties, special districts, or other agencies charged with reviewing and influencing the local housing development. An IGA could establish a shared commitment to an expedited review process for projects that meet certain criteria, or a commitment to use a single list of application requirements and materials. Local governments should also consider collaborating to align similar policies and procedures at a regional level, which would reduce the amount of variability between local government regulations that applicants need to navigate. View examples of housing-related IGAs on DOLA’s website.
B. Development Review Administration
(1.) Application Checklists & Guides
Local governments can improve development review speed and efficiency by better clarifying and describing the expectations, submittal requirements, responsibilities, and roles of both the developer and the local government in the application review process. These should clearly identify the submittal requirements, level of detail required in application materials, review process and procedures, expected internal and external review timeframes, expectations for applicant resubmittal timelines, review/decision making bodies, and approval criteria. In addition, these materials should include names and contact information of those to whom the application should be submitted and to whom questions can be asked.
(2.) Pre-Application Meeting
A pre-application meeting provides an opportunity for staff, referral agencies, and the applicant to discuss the submittal requirements, review process, approval standards and criteria, and any “red flags” identified by staff or reviewing agency(ies) that may prevent approval of the housing project. An agenda of topics to be discussed at the meeting should be provided to the applicant before the meeting, and notes summarizing the discussion should be provided afterward. The notes should include the required review process and a list of any possible concerns that will still need to be addressed in the application or review process. In addition, it is helpful for the notes to include a general timeline identifying how long the applicant can expect the process to take and highlighting opportunities for the applicant to partner with the local government in shortening the review process such as by promptly submitting clarifications, corrections, or additional materials.
(3.) Prioritize Affordable Housing Projects
As an alternative to developing the formal 90-day or less Fast Track Review Process required for second round Prop. 123 funding, local governments can adopt an administrative policy to prioritize review of applications that meet certain criteria for affordable housing before other land use applications. While this alone does not ensure a final decision within 90 days, this policy places affordable housing applications (as defined by the local government) at the front of the development review queue rather than being placed behind non-affordable housing applications and non-residential applications that were submitted earlier. In order for this strategy to be successful, all external referral agencies must generally agree to a similar policy.
(4.) Consolidated Public Meeting Notices and Schedule
Many jurisdictions hold public meetings at set intervals each month (e.g., the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays) and require public notices and hearings before more than one review body before project approval. When the need for a second public hearing cannot be removed, the local government can improve the efficiency of the review process by providing public notices to all of the required hearing bodies at the start of the review process, so that new rounds of public notice are not needed after each hearing. For example, the policy for affordable housing projects could be to provide notice for both the Planning Commission and elected governing body at the same time to ensure the request is considered at the earliest possible meeting of the governing body. In addition, scheduling joint public hearings involving both the Planning Commission and the elected governing body can significantly shorten the review timeline.
(5.) Post-Review Meeting with Staff and Referral Agencies
A post-review meeting allows commenting staff and referral agencies to discuss their comments with the applicant to ensure that the comments are understood and to clarify what level of detail will be needed for the response to adequately address their comments. Clarity in both the comment and the required responses will reduce the amount of time needed to review responses as well as the amount of time to review the resubmittal. Where possible, all agencies or departments that provided comments should be included in the post-review meeting.
C. Staffing Resources
(1.) Dedicated Staff Planner or Liaison
To maximize depth of understanding of affordable housing project review requirements, local governments can develop subject matter expertise in these types of applications and designate a single point-of-contact to assist affordable housing applicants throughout the entire planning process. Faster and more efficient processing through a single knowledgeable staff person can be a significant incentive for developers to provide affordable housing.
(2.) Development Review Committee (DRC)
A Development Review Committee (DRC) is an internal group of local government staff and representatives of external review and referral agencies that meets regularly to discuss the application and coordinate review comments. This group generally includes local government departments, utility providers, special districts, and state and federal agency partners whose review and/or approval will be needed. Discussions among DRC members avoid the need for sequential review by committee members individually, which can result in inconsistent comments to the applicant. DRCs also help reduce the amount of time it takes to address and respond to comments and reduce the number of reviews needed to clarify comments and reconcile potentially conflicting standards or requirements. Meetings should be scheduled frequently to allow an opportunity to identify and resolve potential concerns quickly.
(3.) Contracted Planning Support
If limited full-time staff capacity is reducing the ability of the local government to process affordable housing applications quickly, increase staff capacity by contracting staff on an as-needed basis to review expedited projects, communicate with applicants to shepherd projects through the review process, or complete similar tasks. This can also include development of a longer relationship with a firm or individual knowledgeable about the local code and about the challenges of developing affordable housing that will help expand the knowledge and capacity of local government staff. To be most helpful, procurement and contracting documents should clearly describe the community values, desired approach, how a successful partnership would operate, and how the success of the contracted firm or individual will be measured. Additionally, communities that currently meet the 90-day or less timeline may decide to hire an on-call contracted planner on an as-needed basis just for larger projects that might challenge the existing staff and process due to their complexity and/or size (i.e., as a contingency plan).
D. Additional Trainings
(1.) Review Staff Training Sessions
To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process, local governments can conduct training sessions for in-house staff who lack experience in reviewing affordable housing applications. As well as describing the review procedure, criteria, and standards, staff with more experience should identify lessons learned and provide answers to frequently asked questions. Increasing staff capacity and knowledge base will not only minimize the need for follow-up reviews but also lead to clearer, more accurate, and more consistent review comments to the developer.
(2.) Developer Training Sessions
To improve developer understanding about the steps involved and materials required for affordable housing project review, local governments can provide training sessions for existing and prospective housing developers. These can take the form of listening sessions, work sessions, recorded videos, webinars, or other media. Training session materials should be created with the active involvement of review and referral agencies so that developers understand both the internal and external requirements for successful project reviews.
We're Here to Help!
Do you have questions about Prop 123 Fast Track? Check out our FAQ page or get one-on-one support below: