The implications of SB9 are significant for local governance and land use planning. Should a local agency fail to submit the required ordinance or respond to compliance findings within specified time frames, the existing ordinance could be rendered void. This means that local governments must adhere strictly to the timelines set forth; otherwise, they are compelled to revert to the state-established standards for ADU approvals. The bill enhances state oversight over local ordinances, particularly in housing matters, to eliminate delays in the housing creation process.
Summary
SB9, introduced by Senators Arregun and McNerney, amends Section 66326 of the Government Code in California concerning accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This legislation aims to streamline the process for local agencies in adopting ordinances related to the creation of ADUs. Importantly, it requires these agencies to submit any new ordinances to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days of adoption. The department will then assess these ordinances to determine if they comply with state standards, thus ensuring that local laws are in line with overarching state regulations regarding housing development.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding SB9 reflects a proactive approach to resolving California's housing shortage by expediting the approval of ADUs. Supporters view the bill as a necessary tool that empowers the state to encourage local agencies to comply with housing standards and increase housing supply. Critics, however, may regard the bill as infringing upon local autonomy, arguing that it dictates local governance processes without sufficient flexibility to accommodate unique community needs.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the potential for conflict between state mandates and local community control. While the goal is to facilitate faster housing development, some stakeholders express concerns that the one-size-fits-all approach could overlook local conditions and specific needs. Additionally, ensuring that local agencies remain compliant with these new regulations could create friction, particularly if agencies feel pressured to align closely with state requirements despite local contexts.