This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| SB 35 (Wiener, 2017) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Senate Bill 35 |
| Introduced | 2017 |
| Author | Scott Wiener |
| Enacted | 2017 |
| Jurisdiction | California |
| Status | enacted |
SB 35 (Wiener, 2017) was a 2017 California legislative measure authored by Senator Scott Wiener that created a ministerial pathway for housing approvals in specified jurisdictions. It aimed to accelerate residential development by limiting discretionary review for projects meeting objective planning, zoning, and affordability criteria, interacting with statewide housing goals, local housing elements, and judicial review.
The bill emerged amid policy debates involving Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, California State Senate, California State Assembly, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles City Council, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Association of Bay Area Governments, Southern California Association of Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, California Housing Finance Agency, California Legislative Analyst's Office, California Housing Element, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Shelter Partnership, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, National Association of Realtors, California Chamber of Commerce, California Building Industry Association, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Urban Land Institute, SPUR, PolicyLink, California Environmental Quality Act, Department of Finance (California), San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, West Hollywood, Berkeley, Santa Monica, Irvine, Sacramento, Anaheim, Long Beach, Pasadena, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The measure was tied to statewide housing shortages, the decline in housing affordability documented by California Housing Partnership Corporation and analyses by McKinsey & Company, Goldman Sachs, Zillow, CoreLogic, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Brookings Institution, and Urban Institute. Legislative bargaining involved interests represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL–CIO, National Multifamily Housing Council, Californians for Homeownership, and municipal legal counsel across California.
SB 35 established a ministerial approval process for qualifying residential projects where local jurisdictions had failed to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets, setting objective criteria for project eligibility. It specified thresholds for unit counts, ministerial timelines, and affordability set-asides referencing Senate Bill 2 (2017), Assembly Bill 744 (2013), and density bonuses consistent with California Government Code provisions. The bill applied exemptions and layering rules involving California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemptions, objective design standards, labor protections associated with prevailing wage debates connected to California Building Trades, and coordination with state agencies such as California Department of Transportation and Bay Area Air Quality Management District where environmental review was constrained. SB 35 required conformity with local objective zoning and objective design review standards while precluding discretionary use permits and design review for compliant projects in eligible jurisdictions.
Implementation relied on regulatory guidance issued by California Department of Housing and Community Development and administrative direction from the Office of Planning and Research, with technical assistance from Governor's Office of Planning and Research and oversight bodies including California Attorney General opinions and rulings from the California Supreme Court and the California Courts of Appeal. Local planning departments in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Santa Monica and Irvine developed application checklists, objective design standards, and ministerial review procedures informed by model ordinances from MTC, SCAG, and nonprofit partners such as Enterprise Community Partners, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and Housing California. The bill's operationalization involved mapping eligible parcels against local zoning maps, coordinating building permit issuance with agencies including California Department of Public Health where health impacts intersected, and integrating labor monitoring via entities aligned with California Workforce Development Board.
Since enactment, SB 35 facilitated approvals of multifamily projects and affordable units in jurisdictions that missed RHNA allocations, contributing to developments in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, West Hollywood, Berkeley and Santa Monica. Evaluations by Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley, California Legislative Analyst's Office, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California and California Housing Partnership Corporation documented increases in permitted units, timelines reduction, and varied impacts on affordability, neighborhood composition, and construction employment measured against data from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of Labor Statistics. The law intersected with regional planning efforts by ABAG and SCAG and influenced private capital flows from investors like BlackRock, Greystar, Related Companies and AvalonBay Communities seeking streamlined approvals.
SB 35 prompted statutory clarifications and regulatory updates and was subject to litigation in state courts, including cases brought by municipal plaintiffs, neighborhood groups, and developer interests drawing on precedents from California Environmental Quality Act jurisprudence and constitutional arguments litigated before the California Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal. Subsequent legislative acts and amendments were negotiated in the California State Legislature to refine objective standards and eligibility, interacting with bills addressing housing finance such as Assembly Bill 1482, Senate Bill 2 (2017), and land use statutes codified in the California Government Code and California Public Resources Code.
Reception ranged from endorsements by housing advocates like YIMBY Action, SPUR, Terner Center for Housing Innovation and Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California to critiques by local activist groups, neighborhood associations, and municipal officials in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Oakland. Critics cited concerns echoed by commentators at Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and policy analysts from Urban Institute, Brookings Institution over displacement risk, neighborhood change, labor standards, and the sufficiency of affordability set-asides. Proponents pointed to endorsements from California Housing Partnership Corporation, Enterprise Community Partners, National Multifamily Housing Council and labor coalitions emphasizing job creation and housing supply.
SB 35 influenced subsequent policy dialogues involving Regional Housing Needs Allocation, California Housing Element revisions, zoning reform efforts in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and state initiatives under administrations of Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom. Future developments considered in legislative and advocacy circles include coordination with transit-oriented development programs tied to Bay Area Rapid Transit, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Caltrain, Metrolink, and finance mechanisms involving California Housing Finance Agency, Federal Home Loan Bank, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and private-public partnerships with entities like Enterprise Community Partners and Local Initiatives Support Corporation to scale production and affordability.