Transcript Highlights:

• </c> restrictive environment is. restrictive environment is.
• Are you the least restrictive environment, or is Winnisquam the least restrictive environment?
• Which is the least restrictive five.
• </c> when we're looking at least restrictive when we're looking at least restrictive programming<02:01
• ><c> than</c><02:03:51.160><c> even</c> those are more restrictive than even those are more restrictive

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission on the costing of special education met to review several documents and updates, including draft materials on residential placements, an LBA dispute resolution report, prior minutes, rate-setting rules, and a letter involving Senator Hassan. The minutes from March 16 were approved by motion, second, and one abstention. Members also received an update that the LBA special education performance audit is still pending; the report is expected to be very large, NHED and the Board of Education must review and comment before release, and it likely will not be available until late summer or early fall. The separate EFA audit was also noted as still unreleased, and members said they may return later to issues involving EFA costing and differentiated aid. A major focus was HB 1099, which would create a committee to study the cost and liability of providing educational services to students placed in residential facilities. The chair explained that the House version had passed unanimously and the bill was headed to a committee of conference. Members discussed a proposed amendment to add the phrase “including but not limited to” so the study would cover not only court-ordered or treatment-related placements but also other residential placements, including those tied to school district decisions. Some members said this was a substantial expansion, while others said it would simply give the committee broader latitude. Jason Stock of the Winnisquam Regional School Board described how the issue arose during budget work at Winnisquam, where the district was trying to determine who should pay for educational services for students living at Spaulding Youth Center in Northfield. He said the district had 10 students attending Winnisquam, including three foster students and seven students connected to Spaulding, and that Spaulding-specific invoicing for 2024-2025 totaled $141,417.05 for eight students. Members also discussed rising private placement tuition costs and the difficulty of determining residency and fiscal responsibility for students placed in residential settings. Department counsel explained that under RSA 193:27 and 193:28, children placed in a home for children may attend the local district school, and that special education cost responsibility depends on whether the student is identified as disabled and on the nature of the placement. Spaulding representatives had not yet presented by the end of the excerpt, and the committee was still working through the residency and funding questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh requires the most restrictive data privacy settings um and as well as restrictions on marketing specifically
• </c> does is it restricts does is it restricts um um um that<00:03:51.680><c> account</c><00:03:52.640
• ><c> of</c> that account and it restricts some of that account and it restricts some of the<00:03:53.480
• </c> also uh requires the most restrictive also uh requires the most restrictive data<00:04:04.200><c
• </c> restrictions on those accounts. restrictions on those accounts.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the value is being undermined by manufacturers' discriminatory practices, especially restrictions
• The reduced access for patients at numerous health centers is a direct result of restrictions on the
• These bills would restrict PBMs and health insurers from negotiating with or limiting 340B entities,
• It is growing. ...through so-called restrictions, but data show otherwise.
• They restrict our ability to pay for essentials and to support our children.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also serious concern about the restrictions on the ability to act on a protection order.
• By way of background, state law currently restricts a number of actions related to firearms, including
• By way of background, state law currently restricts a number of actions related to firearms, including
• Third, it creates new restrictions on digital firearm manufacturing codes, including prohibiting the
• Piling new restrictions on top of lawful activity and creating new crimes out of file possession does

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This restriction applies uniformly again to all felons without distinguishing between violent offenders
• By targeting the restrictions to violent offenders, Committee sub-He Bill 2771 ensures that those who
• I was given freedom of all my restrictions, penalties, and So what on my, my things, but here it is 45
• There is a reason why violent felons are restricted from having their guns.
• Firearms. have been far too restricted. In our state and in our country.

Bills: HB259

Keywords: redistricting, Independent Citizen Redistricting Commission, Texas Legislature, elections, district boundaries, voter representation

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill does not restrict development.
• Scott Norman Jr.: To designate water restrictions for areas that have limited water supply.
• Wes Benedict: Many cities do have Wes Benedict: restrictions restricting areas to 5,000 or larger square
• Chris Gannon: It would be restricted to 40% if you're within a subchapter F area.
• That's what you restricted. That's the Chair: maximum that we'd be allowed to build.

Transcript Highlights:

• occupancy, related to employment, owner occupancy, and<00:05:33.919><c> deed</c><00:05:34.160><c> restrictions
• </c><00:05:35.280><c> First</c><00:05:35.520><c> testifiers,</c> And deed restrictions.
• </c><00:17:09.039><c> should</c><00:17:09.199><c> apply</c> county income restrictions should apply county
• income restrictions should apply to<00:17:09.600><c> these</c><00:17:09.839><c> projects</c><00:17:10.959
• </c> a 10-year buyback restriction, etc. a 10-year buyback restriction, etc.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Restrictions undermine the intent of Texas law, Second Amendment rights, and creates unnecessary. for
• impose civil penalties ranging from $1,000 to $10,005 per violation on contractors who unlawfully restrict
• That trust is undermined when private entities operating on a public land impose restrictions that exceed
• These are a fundamentally law-abiding population that the restriction of this right in this matter is
• If we forbid them from restricting firearms we are undermining their ability to keep these events safe

Bills: SB1065, SB2117, SB2217, SB2363, SB2533, SB2742, SB2743, SB2881, SB2964, SB3013, SB3014

Keywords: SB 1065, handgun carry, license holder, concealed carry, open carry, government contracts, governmental entity, property lease, state agencies, local government, higher education, university, Texas Government Code, Penal Code 30.06, Penal Code 30.07, Penal Code 46.03, Second Amendment, gun rights, firearms, civil penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• We’ll amend the bill so that we restrict vehicles over 10,000 pounds and those towing another vehicle
• the left lane on roads with three or more lanes going in the same direction, instead of basing restrictions
• Thirdly, we’ll ensure that the restrictions in this measure shall exclude vehicles using the left lane
• We’ll amend the bill with amendments so that we restrict vehicles over 10,000 pounds and those towing
• Thirdly, we’ll ensure that the restrictions in this measure shall exclude vehicles using the left lane

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 229 HD1, a transportation measure previously heard jointly with another committee. Members recommended passing it with amendments. The amendments would shift the left-lane restriction from a speed-based standard to apply to vehicles over 10,000 pounds and vehicles towing another vehicle or trailer on roads with three or more lanes in the same direction. The committee also indicated the Judiciary Committee would handle the penalty amounts, while preserving exemptions for passing, left turns, public transit, school buses, and emergency vehicles, and keeping the bill limited to counties with populations over 500,000. The motion was adopted without discussion. The committee then considered HB 1 HD2 relating to the HCDA and transit-oriented development financing. The proposed amendments would give HCDA authority to develop parcels outside community development districts, allow community facilities districts within TOD zones, authorize CFD bonds and HCDA bonds to finance infrastructure, especially transit infrastructure, and incorporate the structure and intent of SB 1669, along with technical changes. The committee recommended passage with amendments, and the measure was adopted. Later, the committee heard HB 1167 HD1, an emergency appropriation to the Department of Transportation. DOT testified in support and clarified that the requested appropriation was $1 million from state highway funds. The committee recommended passing the bill with amendments, including changing the defective date to July 1, 2025 and noting the $1 million request in the committee report for further consideration by Ways and Means. The motion passed, with the chair, Senator Kanuha, and Senator Dort voting in favor and the vice chair excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• Restrictions on this contract pharmacy use.
• These restrictions create a burden for patients.
• In fact, the restrictions that have been put.
• All the restrictions that we're talking about, who implemented those restrictions?
• The data they seek is to further restrict medicine.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mano has a restriction on rental density in our single-family neighborhoods, up to 25% per block in areas
• Mano has a<00:17:47.760><c> restriction</c><00:17:48.559><c> on</c><00:17:48.880><c> rental</c><00:17
• </c><00:28:47.520><c> local</c> oppose efforts to restrict local oppose efforts to restrict local decision-making
• We are saying that restrictive aesthetic mandates is what we're addressing.
• We are saying that restrictive aesthetic mandates is what we're addressing.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• gender-affirming care, including but not limited to ensuring access to emergency abortion care, restricting
• up and updating the 2022 shield law is one way Massachusetts can fight back against attempts to restrict
• Or even if it is, they do the same restrictions that they did in 2016 when abortion providers cannot
• Or even if it is, they do the same restrictions that they did in 2016 when abortion providers cannot
• So we wanted to urge the legislature to consider simply dropping the restriction post-24 weeks.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Steering and Policy held a public hearing on potential updates to Massachusetts’ 2022 Shield Law to strengthen protections for reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Chair Cindy Friedman said the hearing was prompted by escalating federal and out-of-state threats, and testimony was sought on loopholes and clarifications involving emergency abortion care, limits on cooperation with outside investigations, protection of patient data, and safeguarding licenses of providers and attorneys involved in this care. The Attorney General’s Office, ACLU of Massachusetts, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, Reproductive Equity Now, the Massachusetts Medical Society, TransHealth, and Health Imperatives all supported strengthening the law. Witnesses urged broader bans on sharing health data with hostile states, explicit AG enforcement authority, exclusion of reproductive and gender-affirming prescriptions from the prescription monitoring program, protections for electronic medical records, and allowing clinicians to use practice names on prescription labels. Several speakers also called for protections for parents of transgender youth, attorneys, and nonprofit organizations, and some raised related concerns about insurance discrimination and the burden of post-24-week abortion restrictions. Committee members asked questions about enforcement mechanisms, data privacy, patient consent, and how to balance interoperability with privacy protections in electronic records. Witnesses said the goal was to prevent immediate harm while preserving patient control and access to care. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed by inviting written testimony and then moved to adjourn the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• a targeted, no-cost fix to streamline affordable home ownership by removing the 180-day resale restriction
• So the moderate units would still be subject to the 180-day restrictions.
• Restrictions as well.
• So that is the intention, which is also consistent with the deed restriction that local municipalities
• So that is the intention, which is also consistent with the deed restriction that local municipalities

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard five housing-related bills. AB 748 would require local governments to create preapproved housing plan programs for single-family and small multifamily projects under 10 units, extending a model already used for ADUs. The author and Habitat for Humanity supported it as a way to reduce design and permitting costs and speed rebuilding, while concerns from the League of Cities had been addressed; the bill ultimately advanced unanimously to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. AB 739 would require managing agents for common interest developments to provide HOAs a summary of fees charged to homeowners. Realtors supported the measure as a simple transparency disclosure, and community managers said they would drop their opposition once committee amendments clarified the requirement and avoided blanket mailings. The bill was amended and passed 7-0 to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. AB 939 would remove the 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted ownership units when a developer is under contract with a qualified nonprofit affordable housing organization, allowing units to be sold sooner to low-income buyers. Habitat for Humanity, the California Building Industry Association, and housing advocates supported it as a no-cost fix to reduce vacancy and carrying costs, while the California Association of Realtors opposed it, warning it could create a right of first refusal and raise competition; the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. AB 1070 would direct the state to study whether California should modernize its building code so small, low-rise “missing middle” housing can be built under residential-style standards rather than commercial code requirements. Supporters from the Council of Infill Builders, Casita Coalition, California YIMBY, and the California Housing Consortium said the current code makes small multifamily projects unnecessarily expensive and infeasible, while members emphasized the need to simplify permitting and reduce local overreach. The bill passed unanimously to Appropriations. AB 1184, from the vice chair, would add transparency and access rights for HOA residents, including access to recordings of HOA meetings, and committee amendments were accepted. With no opposition testimony, it also passed unanimously to Appropriations. After the hearing, absent members were recorded as voting, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• in state law if the developer is under contract with a nonprofit affordable housing... ...restriction
• So the moderate units would still be subject to the 180-day restrictions.
• The Habitat for Humanity nonprofit affordable homeownership program has deed restrictions as well. ..
• .Restrictions as well.
• And that is consistent with the deed restriction that local municipalities put on the homes.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development met first as a subcommittee because quorum was initially lacking, then later established quorum and heard five housing-related bills. AB 748 would require local governments to create preapproved housing plan programs for single-family and small multifamily projects under 10 units, expanding a model already used for ADUs; the author and Habitat for Humanity argued it would save time and money, and there was no opposition. The committee later passed AB 748 unanimously to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. AB 739 would require managing agents for common interest developments to provide HOAs a summary of fees charged and paid to management companies. Realtors and community managers supported the bill as a transparency measure, while the California Association of Community Managers initially opposed it but said it would remove opposition if committee amendments were adopted to avoid blanket mailings and cost increases. The committee adopted the amendments and passed AB 739 7-0 to Appropriations. AB 939 would remove the 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted for-sale units when a developer is under contract with a qualified nonprofit affordable housing organization, allowing units to be sold sooner to low-income buyers. Habitat for Humanity, the California Building Industry Association, and several housing groups supported the measure as a no-cost fix to reduce vacancy and carrying costs, while the California Association of Realtors opposed it, warning it could create a right of first refusal and set a precedent affecting property rights and competition. After discussion about the narrow scope and committee amendments, the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. AB 1070 would direct the state to study and potentially modernize building code treatment for small, middle-housing projects so that low-rise buildings with three to ten units could be regulated more like residential structures rather than commercial ones. Supporters said the current code makes small multifamily projects unnecessarily expensive and that other states have adopted similar approaches; there was no opposition. The committee passed AB 1070 unanimously to Appropriations. Finally, AB 1184, by the vice chair, would increase HOA transparency and resident access to records, including recordings of HOA meetings; it had no witnesses in opposition and passed 8-0 as amended to Appropriations. After the meeting, absent members later added votes, and the final recorded votes were 10-1 for AB 939, 11-0 for AB 1070 and AB 1184, and unanimous support for AB 739 and AB 748.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were some complaints about that—they were restricted to use it on projects that they didn't want
• Yeah, about the idea of restricting, I mean, holding back funding. Mr.
• And so if you're going to restrict those dollars, And so if you're going to restrict those dollars, the
• And so if you're going to restrict unreasonable and put... ...in my opinion.
• And so if you're going to restrict unreasonable and put like a 2,640-foot setback around a home, that's

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to consider Senate Bill 2012, the Department of Transportation budget, with Representative Brandenburg presenting a detailed House amendment package and Speaker Robin Weisz explaining the overall funding strategy. The discussion focused on restructuring transportation funding streams, including moving Prairie Dog money into a flexible transportation fund, adjusting gas tax distributions, increasing the legacy earnings transfer from 7% to 8%, and authorizing a $155 million bond for Highway 85. Members also discussed DOT operations, bridge funding, rest areas, electronic titling, and the use of funds for grants to counties, cities, and townships. A separate provision would let the DOT consider whether local ordinances or policies unreasonably restrict permitted agriculture or energy projects when scoring grant applications, which drew significant debate about local control and whether the language was punitive. Testimony from Brandenburg and Weisz emphasized that the plan was intended to provide more predictable funding, preserve the ability to match federal dollars, and direct money where needs are greatest through a grant process. Weisz said the package was designed to simplify multiple revenue buckets, ensure DOT can meet federal match requirements, and free up money for the general fund while still supporting transportation needs. Several members raised concerns about whether cities, counties, and townships would receive as much as under the prior Prairie Dog structure, whether the bridge allocation was correctly reflected in the bill, and whether the local-policy language would penalize subdivisions that oppose energy projects. Supporters argued the state needed to protect revenue tied to energy development and that local governments would still receive distributions plus additional grant opportunities. The committee adopted the House amendment to SB 2012 by a vote of 19-1-3, then rejected an amendment to remove the local-policy language on a 5-15-3 vote. The committee then passed SB 2012 as amended on a 20-0-3 vote, with Representative Brandenburg designated as the carrier. The chair announced that Senate Bill 2014 would not be taken up at that time and the committee recessed until called back.

Transcript Highlights:

• to qualify, including restrictions on service and experience-based businesses.
• on</c> eliminates geographic restrictions on eliminates geographic restrictions on the<00:03:26.879>
• 56.720><c> have</c><00:03:57.120><c> uh</c> eliminates restrictions that have uh eliminates restrictions
• and restrictions on service and experience-based<00:04:03.280><c> businesses.
• </c><00:10:00.480><c> have</c> border cities program restrictions have border cities program restrictions

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Adding a new category of restricted items without clear, concise definitions means significant system
• If Minnesota adopts restrictions that differ from neighboring states, consumers near the border will
• ><c> clear,</c><00:18:25.679><c> concise</c> restricted items without clear, concise restricted items
• </c><00:19:09.760><c> from</c> adopts restrictions that differ from adopts restrictions that differ from
• If we're going to ask people who are taking, you know, on SNAP to restrict what they eat, and I'll go

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• just say for notes, um, it dealt with the physician's assistant equaling the provider, uh, made restrictions
• The physician's assistant equaling the provider, uh, made restrictions a little tougher and wanted to
• Chairman, when it comes to some of these laws that have restrictions on speech, First Amendment rights
• You can still have restrictions or zoning that apply to those.
• </c><00:53:43.920><c> or</c> be you can still have restrictions or be you can still have restrictions

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• purpose of eliminating the individual income tax and exempt sales tax expansions from existing restrictions
• Because I realize this bill is restricting the authority of a local government to ban modular homes,
• Perhaps the more urban areas have adopted the more later codes, but they become extremely restrictive
• You just don't want to make it restrictive and would prevent certain manufacturers from being able to
• But real quick, are a lot or the majority of municipalities have restrictive rules on?

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment restricts it to a 30% maximum of the total market share in any one co-op, which I think
• When folks go to jail, so many of their rights are restricted.
• When folks go to jail, so many of their rights are restricted.
• I think the underlying bill is restrictive to parents, especially. ...comments right there.
• Not every family has access in our state to a health care provider, and that is a restrictive element

Bills: HB1160, HB1289, HB1339, HB1798, HB1065, HB1795, HB2107, HB2113, HB2124, HB2125, HB2133, HB2134, HB2140, HB2185, HB2191, HB2205, HB2211, HB2219, HB2245, HB2253, HB2283, HB2343, HB2406, HB2501, HB2531, HB2574, HB1170, HB1544, HB1834, HB2156, HB2188, HB2206, HB2360, HB2471, HB2478, HB2525, HB2605, HJM4012, HB1104, HB1152, HB1254, HB1443, HB1710, HB1750, HB1903, HB1941, HB1974, HB1982, HB1983, HB2006, HB2034, HB2105, HB2179, HB2203, HB2215, HB2223, HB2239, HB2247, HB2297, HB2303, HB2322, HB2329, HB2334, HB2338, HB2345, HB2348, HB2350, HB2353, HB2355, HB2363, HB2367, HB2379, HB2388, HB2399, HB2418, HB2420, HB2428, HB2441, HB2462, HB2464, HB2467, HB2495, HB2505, HB2534, HB2539, HB2544, HB2551, HB2554, HB2557, HB2575, HB2577, HB2588, HB2594, HB2604, HB2636, HB2714, HB1160, HB1289, HB1339, HB1798, HB1065, HB1795, HB2113, HB2124, HB2125, HB2134, HB2140, HB2185, HB2191, HB2205, HB2211, HB2219, HB2245, HB2253, HB2283, HB2343, HB2406, HB2501, HB2574, HB1170, HB1544, HB1834, HB2156, HB2188, HB2206, HB2471, HB2478, HB2605, HJM4012, HB1104, HB1152, HB1254, HB1443, HB1903, HB1941, HB1982, HB2006, HB2034, HB2105, HB2179, HB2203, HB2297, HB2303, HB2322, HB2329, HB2345, HB2350, HB2379, HB2388, HB2399, HB2418, HB2462, HB2464, HB2495, HB2539, HB2544, HB2551, HB2554, HB2588, HB2636, HB1128, HB1408, HB1570, HB1742, HB1823, HB2089, HB2104, HB2114, HB2172, HB2192, HB2207, HB2251, HB2262, HB2266, HB2294, HB2298, HB2319, HB2320, HB2323, HB2351, HB2354, HB2374, HB2401, HB2405, HB2429, HB2431, HB2442, HB2451, HB2479, HB2496, HB2515, HB2523, HB2540, HB2593, HB2632, HB2661, HB1496, HB1898, HB2095, HB2157, HB2225, HB2274, HB2311, HB2325, HB2333, HB2476, HB2508, HB2552

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU