The bill's impact will be substantial as it effectively nullifies any existing local ordinances that do not meet its standards. By enforcing the requirement for local agencies to submit their ordinances to the state promptly, SB9 ensures that only compliant ordinances remain in effect. This approach seeks to standardize how ADUs are approved across California, potentially increasing the availability of affordable housing in a state grappling with a significant housing shortage. Should a local agency fail to comply, their ordinances will be rendered void, thus reverting to state standards for ADU approval until compliant ordinances are adopted.
Summary
Senate Bill 9, introduced by Senator Arregun and co-authored by Senator McNerney, amends the Government Code relating to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The bill requires local agencies to adopt ordinances that provide only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and prohibits any discretionary processes related to such units. Furthermore, it mandates that local agencies must submit their ADU ordinances to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. This measure aims to streamline the approval process for ADUs, addressing the ongoing housing crisis by facilitating more efficient construction of additional housing units within existing residential properties.
Sentiment
Sentiment surrounding SB9 appears mixed, reflecting broader debates over local versus state authority in land use decisions. Proponents, primarily from the housing advocacy community and some legislative members, argue that the bill is a necessary step toward increasing housing availability and addressing shortages faced by many Californians. However, detractors raise concerns about the potential erosion of local control, with some suggesting that such measures might overlook local needs and community planning priorities that vary significantly across regions.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the implications for local governance over land use and the balance between state mandates and community-based planning. Critics argue that the stringent 60-day compliance requirement may pressure local agencies to adopt ordinances that do not necessarily reflect the unique needs of their communities. Supporters counter that the push for state-standardized processes is crucial for overcoming bureaucratic hurdles that delay the development of critical housing infrastructure.