SB 35 (2017)

SB 35 (2017)
Title	SB 35 (2017)
Enacted	2017
Jurisdiction	California
Status	Enacted

SB 35 (2017) was a California statutory reform enacted in 2017 to accelerate certain housing approvals by streamlining ministerial review for qualifying residential and mixed-use projects. The statute intersected with statewide debates involving Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, California State Senate, California State Assembly, and municipal planning authorities, and influenced relationships among developers, affordable housing advocates, transit agencies, and environmental organizations. SB 35 interacted with existing statutes like the Housing Accountability Act and policies tied to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation framework and metropolitan planning agencies such as the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Background and Legislative Context

SB 35 emerged amid mounting pressure from entities like California Senate Housing Committee, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Local Agency Formation Commission, and advocacy groups including Habitat for Humanity, California Housing Consortium, and The California Environmental Justice Alliance. The bill addressed housing shortages highlighted by analyses from California Legislative Analyst's Office, McKinsey & Company, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, and publications in Los Angeles Times, The Sacramento Bee, and San Francisco Chronicle. Economic and demographic trends cited included migration patterns studied by UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, affordability metrics from Zillow, and regional planning reports from the Southern California Association of Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Debates referenced landmark precedents such as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, No Place Like Home (California) policy initiatives, and arbitration with municipal zoning regimes like Los Angeles Department of City Planning and San Diego Planning Commission.

Provisions of the Bill

SB 35 established ministerial approval pathways administered by counties and cities for qualifying projects that met specified criteria, aligning with statutory elements found in statutes like the Density Bonus Law and environmental statutes considered under the California Environmental Quality Act. Eligibility rules referenced income-targeting provisions familiar to practitioners of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit policy and programs operated by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles. The bill included objective standards for open-space, height, and parking that intersected with guidelines from agencies such as the California Building Standards Commission and planning tools used by San Francisco Planning Department and Los Angeles City Planning. It contained provisions affecting transit-oriented development near stations operated by Bay Area Rapid Transit, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Sound Transit. Incentive mechanisms paralleled instruments used by Redevelopment Agency programs and federal frameworks like the Community Development Block Grant program administered by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Implementation and Regulatory Guidance

Regulatory guidance for SB 35 was developed through collaboration among California Department of Housing and Community Development, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and local agencies including the City of San Jose, City of Sacramento, and City of Oakland. Implementation involved rulemaking processes similar to those used by California Coastal Commission and coordination with housing elements mandated by the Williamson Act and the California Environmental Quality Act processes as adjudicated by courts including California Supreme Court opinions on ministerial versus discretionary review. Local implementation required updates to objective design standards influenced by precedents from New York City Department of City Planning and Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability case studies. Technical assistance came from nonprofit intermediaries such as Enterprise Community Partners, California Housing Partnership Corporation, and academic centers including the Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

Impact and Outcomes

Empirical outcomes assessed by researchers at UC Berkeley, Stanford University, and UCLA documented varied results in permitting volumes, affordability outcomes, and geographic distribution of projects. Some jurisdictions—San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland—saw increased filings for projects leveraging ministerial review, while suburban and coastal municipalities exhibited constrained uptake. Analysts compared outcomes with international examples from London, Tokyo, and Vancouver (city). Fiscal implications affected local revenue streams and infrastructure obligations overseen by California State Controller's Office and county treasurers. The bill influenced private actors such as Related Companies, WinnCompanies, and local builders, as well as philanthropic funders like The Rockefeller Foundation that supported housing innovation.

Legal Challenges and Litigation

SB 35 prompted litigation initiated by municipal governments, homeowner associations, and advocacy organizations invoking statutory interpretations and constitutional claims heard in forums including California Courts of Appeal and trial courts in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Cases engaged issues similar to disputes in Yimby litigation and adjudications involving California Environmental Quality Act compliance. Parties included municipal defendants from City of Huntington Beach and private plaintiffs represented by firms with track records in land-use litigation. Decisions and settlements referenced jurisprudence from federal courts such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when preemption and federal fair housing considerations arose.

Political Response and Public Debate

Political response spanned elected officials from Dianne Feinstein, Alex Padilla, Nancy Pelosi, Kevin de León, and local leaders like London Breed and Eric Garcetti, along with coalitions such as SPUR and YIMBY Action. Advocacy and opposition groups included California Apartment Association, Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, labor unions like the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, and community organizations from neighborhoods in Oakland, Richmond, and East Palo Alto. Media coverage from outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR amplified debates about housing supply, displacement, and zoning reform, while policy forums hosted by Brookings Institution and Urban Land Institute facilitated technical discussions. Ongoing political dynamics tied SB 35 to subsequent legislative efforts by lawmakers such as Scott Wiener and local ballot measures in jurisdictions including San Mateo County.

Category:California statutes