Land use: zoning regulations.
The passage of SB 277 would have a significant impact on state laws governing land use and zoning regulations. By reaffirming and expanding the ability of local jurisdictions to impose inclusionary housing ordinances, the bill aims to increase the supply of affordable housing across California. This legislative change comes in response to a 2009 appellate court decision, which created uncertainties regarding the enforcement of such ordinances. Thus, SB 277 is designed to provide clarity and encourage local governments to actively pursue policies that promote affordable housing development.
Senate Bill 277, introduced by Senator Bradford, focuses on amending the state's Planning and Zoning Law to expand the authority of local governments in California. The bill authorizes city or county legislative bodies to require a certain percentage of residential rental units to be affordable for moderate-income, lower-income, very low-income, and extremely low-income households as a condition for new developments. This provision is aimed at addressing the affordable housing crisis in the state, which has struggled to provide adequate housing for its residents, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
General sentiment surrounding SB 277 is positive among proponents of affordable housing, who view it as a necessary step towards enhancing local governance in housing development. However, there are concerns among some stakeholders, particularly property developers, about potential overreach and regulatory burdens that could arise from mandated affordability requirements. The bill's supporters argue that it is a vital tool for combating the housing crisis and ensuring equitable access to housing, especially in high-demand areas.
One of the notable points of contention regarding SB 277 is its relation to the principles of local control versus state intervention. While supporters maintain that the bill empowers local governments to make informed decisions based on their specific community needs, critics fear that mandated requirements could lead to increased costs for developers and, ultimately, a slowdown in new construction projects. Additionally, the bill seeks to supersede prior court decisions that limited local authorities, raising questions about the balance of power in land-use decisions.