You own a corner lot on a commercial street, zoned for housing, and the last three projects in town spent two years in hearings before anyone poured concrete. Someone at the counter mentions there is a path where the city has to approve your project without a public hearing — no conditional use permit, no discretionary review. It sounds too good to be true, and it comes with a long list of conditions.
That path is the streamlined ministerial approval process created by SB 35 and extended by SB 423. It applies to a multifamily development of two or more units that meets every one of the statute's objective planning standards, and it removes the conditional use permit and other nonlegislative discretionary approvals from the process (§ 65913.4). "Ministerial" means the city checks your project against a checklist rather than deciding whether it likes it.
Key numbers
| The test | What it requires | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Project size | Two or more residential units | § 65913.4(a)(1) |
| Site surroundings | At least 75 percent of the perimeter adjoins parcels with urban uses | § 65913.4(a)(2)(B) |
| Residential share | At least two-thirds of the square footage designated residential | § 65913.4(a)(2)(C) |
| Affordability term, rentals | 55 years | § 65913.4(a)(3) |
| Affordability term, ownership | 45 years | § 65913.4(a)(3) |
| Rentals, projects over 10 units | 10 percent of units at or below 50 percent of area median income | § 65913.4(a)(4) |
| For-sale, projects over 10 units | 10 percent of units at or below 80 percent of area median income | § 65913.4(a)(4) |
Every standard is objective, and every one must be met
This is the trade the statute makes. You give up nothing to discretion — but you also get no partial credit. Miss one standard and you are back in the ordinary approval process.
The project has to be housing, and it has to be multifamily. Two or more residential units (§ 65913.4(a)(1)). A single house does not qualify.
The site has to be in an urban setting, measured two ways. It has to be a legal parcel in a city whose boundaries include part of an urbanized area or urban cluster as designated by the Census Bureau — or, in unincorporated territory, a parcel wholly inside one. And at least 75 percent of the site's perimeter must adjoin parcels already developed with urban uses. A street or highway between your lot and the next does not break that adjacency; the statute says parcels separated only by a road still count as adjoining (§ 65913.4(a)(2)).
The zoning has to already allow housing. The site must be zoned for residential or residential mixed-use, or carry a general plan designation allowing residential use. This is not a rezoning tool — it speeds up approval of something your land is already zoned for.
Two-thirds of the building has to be residential. Measured by square footage, and the calculation includes any additional density, floor area or units granted under the state's Density Bonus Law. Underground space — basements, underground parking — is excluded from the calculation entirely (§ 65913.4(a)(2)(C)).
The affordability commitment is recorded, and it is long
Before the first building permit issues, the developer has to record a land use restriction or covenant locking in the affordable units: 55 years for rented units, 45 years for owned units. The city or county is required to make that recording happen for each parcel or unit in the development (§ 65913.4(a)(3)).
How many units have to be affordable depends on the project. For a development of more than 10 units in a locality that has underbuilt its above-moderate-income housing target, a for-rent project dedicates at least 10 percent of units — counted before any density bonus — to households at or below 50 percent of area median income. A for-sale project dedicates 10 percent at or below 80 percent of area median income (§ 65913.4(a)(4)).
There is a San Francisco Bay Area alternative: instead of those percentages, a project may dedicate 20 percent of units to households below 100 percent of area median income, with the average of those units at or below 80 percent (§ 65913.4(a)(4)).
In every case, a stricter local inclusionary ordinance wins. The statute says so explicitly for each option — if the city already requires a deeper set-aside, the local ordinance applies.
It applies to charter cities too
Cities that write their own charters often argue that state land use rules do not reach them. Not this one:
This chapter shall apply to all cities, including charter cities, counties, and cities and counties.
That is the whole of § 65913.9, and the Legislature's stated reason is that housing supply is a matter of statewide concern. The state's own guidelines go further, describing the section as narrowly tailored and preempting "any and all inconsistent laws, ordinances, regulations, policies or other legal requirements imposed by any locality" (subdivision (j) guidelines).
Where SB 35 and SB 423 fit together
SB 35 is the original — Chapter 366 of the Statutes of 2017 — and it made streamlining available in localities that had not made sufficient progress toward their share of regional housing need. SB 423 extended and amended that framework. Later amendments also confirmed that a project using the streamlined process keeps the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (HCD advisory).
That last point matters more than it sounds. It means using the fast path does not cost you the statute that limits a city's ability to deny or shrink a housing project.
What this page does not cover
The eligibility standards above are subdivision (a) of the statute. The approval timelines — how long a city has to respond, and what happens when it misses a deadline — live in a later subdivision that is not reproduced on this page. Do not assume a deadline from anything written here; read the full section or ask your planner.
Two more limits worth stating plainly. Whether a particular locality is currently subject to streamlining depends on its housing production against its regional allocation, which changes between reporting periods and is not something this page can tell you. And a project can satisfy every standard here and still face conditions the statute allows a city to impose. This is a screening test, not an approval.
Sources
- Government Code §§ 65913–65914.900, 66200–66210 — Housing Development Approvals (incl. § 65913.4 SB 35/SB 423 streamlined ministerial approval) and Housing Sustainability Districts § 65913.4
- Government Code §§ 65913–65914.900, 66200–66210 — Housing Development Approvals (incl. § 65913.4 SB 35/SB 423 streamlined ministerial approval) and Housing Sustainability Districts § 65913.9
- Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (final updated)
- Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory
