California Senate Bill 35

California Senate Bill 35
Original uploader was Zscout370 at en.wikipedia · Public domain · source
Name	California Senate Bill 35
Enacted by	California State Legislature
Introduced by	Scott Wiener
Introduced date	2017
Status	enacted

California Senate Bill 35 is a California legislative measure enacted to streamline housing development approvals for qualifying residential projects in high-opportunity jurisdictions. The bill interacts with state planning laws and housing policy frameworks, aiming to increase housing production by modifying local discretionary review processes. It has generated extensive litigation, administrative guidance, and responses from municipal, developer, and advocacy groups.

Background and Legislative History

SB 35 emerged amid debates involving California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Environmental Quality Act, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and statewide housing shortages articulated by Governor Jerry Brown-era officials and successor administrations. Proponents such as YIMBY advocates and representatives like Scott Wiener argued the bill addressed constraints highlighted in reports from McKinsey & Company, California State Auditor, and policy analyses by Public Policy Institute of California. Opponents included municipal coalitions like the League of California Cities and housing critics aligned with groups such as Little Hoover Commission. Legislative debates referenced case law from the California Supreme Court and precedents involving Los Angeles County and San Francisco land-use disputes. The measure passed during the 2017–18 California Legislature sessions following committee hearings in bodies including the California State Senate Committee on Housing.

Provisions and Requirements

SB 35 established objective standards invoking SB 9-era discussions, linking to Housing Accountability Act principles and amendments to California Government Code. Key provisions create ministerial approval pathways when jurisdictions fail to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals and when projects meet specified criteria related to density, affordability, and urban infill. The statute prescribes compliance with objective design and development standards found in municipal zoning codes, building code references such as the California Building Standards Commission guidelines, and procedural timelines similar to provisions within the Permitting Process frameworks used by San Diego County, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. SB 35 defines eligibility thresholds for affordable housing set-asides tied to programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and funding sources referenced by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

Implementation and Administration

Implementation has relied on actions by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, local planning departments in jurisdictions like San Jose and Oakland, and enforcement mechanisms coordinated with State Attorney General of California offices. Administrative guidance circulated through memoranda from the Governor of California and technical assistance from the Urban Land Institute and academic partners at University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. Permitting workflows incorporated interagency collaboration with entities such as the California Coastal Commission for projects near coastal zones, and coordination with transit agencies including Bay Area Rapid Transit and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority where transit-oriented development provisions applied. Data collection for compliance used housing databases maintained by California Housing Partnership and municipal permit-tracking systems.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

SB 35 faced litigation initiated by municipal governments, community organizations, and property owner associations invoking constitutional claims and California statutory frameworks. Cases reached courts such as the California Court of Appeal and influenced opinions citing precedents from Nollan v. California Coastal Commission-adjacent jurisprudence and state-level holdings like Sierra Club v. County of Fresno. Challenge themes included interpretations of ministerial versus discretionary approvals, CEQA exemptions, and local zoning preemption doctrines adjudicated in proceedings involving litigants from Santa Monica and City of Palo Alto. Appellate rulings clarified scope and limitations of statutory remedies and informed subsequent administrative guidance and compliance enforcement actions.

Impact and Effects

The bill contributed to increased project approvals in jurisdictions where objective standards aligned with development proposals, with notable activity in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego County. Analysts from Terner Center for Housing Innovation and California Housing Partnership quantified permit upticks in multifamily and affordable housing pipelines, while municipal budget offices in Oakland and Berkeley reported fiscal and planning impacts. Land-use patterns in transit-rich corridors and urban infill sites showed measurable changes, influencing discussions at forums hosted by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-engaged practitioners, Congressional committees concerned with housing policy, and private developers such as Related Companies and regional builders.

Criticisms and Support

Supporters included statewide coalitions like YIMBY Action, industry groups such as the California Building Industry Association, and fiscal advocates referencing analyses from McKinsey & Company and Municipal Finance Officers Association. Critics encompassed the League of California Cities, neighborhood organizations in Santa Cruz and Pasadena, and environmental justice advocates connected to Communities for a Better Environment. Points of contention involved perceived impacts on local autonomy, historic preservation interests citing National Register of Historic Places-listed properties, and debates over displacement risks raised by advocacy groups including Eviction Defense Network. Academic commentators from University of Southern California and University of California, Los Angeles published evaluations weighing production benefits against community concerns.

Category:California statutes