SB35: Difference between revisions
Adds reference to SB 423
imported>Eaymer No edit summary |
Alexshadley (talk | contribs) (Adds reference to SB 423) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
2017 California Senate Bill '''SB35''', the '''Housing For a Growing California Act''', was introduced by Senator Scott Wiener on December 5, 2016 (Principal Co-Authoer: Senator Atkins), passed the California State Senate on September 15, 2017 and the legislation was enrolled on September 20, 2017 during the California Legislatures 2017-2018 Regular Session. The bill, set to expire in 2026, was extended through 2036 by [[SB423|SB 423]].
The SB35 bill text, history, votes, etc. are available via the [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35 governmental California Legislative Information website]
Line 22:
The streamlining applies only to the income levels that aren’t being built for – so if a city is building sufficient market-rate units but not enough low-income units, the project must add low-income units to qualify for streamlined approval.
More info: [https://futuretravel.today/housing-for-a-growing-california-details-on-my-housing-reform-bill-e22dfff855e0#.gpcaqbdp1 https://futuretravel.today/housing-for-a-growing-california-details-on-my-housing-reform-bill-e22dfff855e0#.gpcaqbdp1]▼
== References ==
*Fulton, William. "[http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/20170927_1 Four Takeaways From This Year's Housing Bills.]" ''California Planning & Development Review'', Sep 26, 2017. [http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/20170927_1 http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/20170927_1].<br/> Summary: <br/> 1. #CEQA reform dropped.<br/> 2. 'by-right' via #SB35 highly constrained<br/> 3. #SB166 Housing Element land inventory rules complicated. <br/> 4. funding included for planning<br/> <br/> ''"By-right approvals are now legal – but good luck finding a project that meets the many criteria laid out in SB 35. It’s a little like those CEQA infill exemptions – looks good in concept but it comes with so many strings attached you’ll be hard-pressed to find a developer who can use it.''
''To qualify, the jurisdiction has to be demonstrably behind in meeting its RHNA numbers with actual construction. The project has to be a multi-family project located in an infill zone that is planned for residential development but hasn’t been used for residential in at least 10 years (basically, that’s those old commercial or industrial sites near new transit stops). There has to be an affordable component too, and to qualify for the by-right approval you have to use prevailing wage or union labor. Oh, and the project can’t be in the coastal zone or on wetlands or ag land or anything like that.''
''Basically, if it’s an infill project on old commercial or industrial land that has affordable housing or prevailing wage as part of its funding requirements anyway – sure, then maybe. But how many projects like that are there?''
''By the way, you can hold hearings on an SB 35 project – so long as the hearings are confined to compliance with objective standards and you approve the project ministerially in the end."''
▲
[[Category:Politics]] [[Category:Housing]] [[Category:California Legislation]] [[Category:Development]]
| |||