Senate Bill 35 (2017)

Senate Bill 35 (2017)
Title	Senate Bill 35 (2017)
Legislature	California State Senate
Enacted by	California Legislature
Enacted	2017
Status	Implemented

Senate Bill 35 (2017) was a California legislative measure enacted in 2017 to streamline housing development approval processes across California by creating a ministerial approval path for certain residential projects. The bill aimed to address the California housing shortage and housing affordability crisis by expediting projects that met specified criteria, intersecting with statewide planning laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act and regional housing planning frameworks like the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Proponents included members of the California State Senate, housing advocates, and some development groups, while opponents included local governments, neighborhood organizations, and environmental groups.

Background and legislative context

SB 35 emerged against a backdrop of escalating housing costs in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin Valley, influenced by decades of zoning decisions and land-use policies associated with jurisdictions like San Diego and Oakland. The bill was introduced during the tenure of Governor Jerry Brown and enacted shortly before the administration of Governor Gavin Newsom, linking to ongoing policy debates involving the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Partnership, and the advocacy efforts of organizations such as YIMBY-aligned groups and the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Legislative negotiations referenced precedents including Senate Bill 827, housing elements of the General Plan process, and legal frameworks established by cases like San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco and statutes such as the Housing Accountability Act.

Provisions and mechanisms

SB 35 established a ministerial review pathway for eligible residential developments that met specific thresholds and objective standards, thereby limiting the authority of entities like city councils and county boards of supervisors in discretionary review. The bill specified criteria regarding unit counts, affordability set-asides tied to programs like Low-Income Housing Tax Credit equivalents and income categories defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. Projects qualifying under SB 35 were exempted from certain discretionary approvals under California Environmental Quality Act review when objective zoning and design standards were met, invoking mechanisms similar to streamlined approvals in jurisdictions such as Santa Monica and Berkeley. The statute delineated exemptions for sensitive sites, including those connected to historic designations like National Register of Historic Places listings and environmental protections tied to areas referenced in Endangered Species Act considerations.

Implementation and enforcement

Implementation relied on coordination among municipal planning departments in cities such as San Jose, Sacramento, and Long Beach and oversight by state entities including the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Local governments were required to process qualifying applications ministerially and to report data consistent with the bill's monitoring provisions, echoing reporting practices used by agencies like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and regional councils of governments such as the Southern California Association of Governments. Enforcement mechanisms included judicial review in state courts and administrative remedies pursued through filings in forums like the California Court of Appeal and, where applicable, petitions to the Supreme Court of California. Compliance assessments referenced objective zoning standards from municipal codes influenced by planning precedents in Pasadena and design guidelines exemplified by Santa Barbara.

Reactions and legal challenges

Reactions spanned a spectrum with endorsements from housing advocacy groups linked to organizations like California YIMBY and development trade groups such as the California Building Industry Association, while opposition came from local governments represented by bodies like the League of California Cities and conservation groups including the Sierra Club. Litigation contested SB 35's preemption of local discretionary review, resulting in suits and appellate decisions citing doctrines from cases like Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors and interpretations of CEQA exemptions. Notable legal disputes involved municipalities such as Beverly Hills and Palo Alto, and advocacy coalitions pursued both defense and challenges through filings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and state appellate venues.

Impact and outcomes

SB 35's streamlined path contributed to increased permitting and construction of multifamily housing in various jurisdictions, with measurable effects observed in development pipelines in Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles County. The policy influenced debates over transit-oriented development near nodes like BART stations and commuter rail corridors such as Caltrain, and intersected with funding streams tied to programs administered by the California Housing Finance Agency and local redevelopment successor agencies. Evaluations by academic centers and think tanks associated with institutions such as University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University documented increases in permitted units but also highlighted contentious issues over displacement, gentrification, and the distribution of affordable housing between coastal regions and the Central Valley.

Amendments and subsequent legislation

Following enactment, SB 35 was affected by legislative adjustments and related bills addressing affordable housing, land-use reform, and CEQA modifications, including measures debated alongside proposals like SB 827 and later statutes passed during sessions of the California Legislature under Governors Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown. Amendments refined definitions of eligible projects, clarified reporting requirements, and adjusted interactions with local zoning codes and historic preservation statutes, while concurrent legislation such as housing element updates and funding bills from the California State Budget further shaped SB 35's operational environment. The statute remains a component of California's broader housing policy portfolio alongside programs administered by the California Department of Finance and statewide planning initiatives coordinated with regional agencies like the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Category:California statutes