Planning staff outlines San Francisco’s SB 35 implementation and AB 831 audit plan

San Francisco planning staff on Wednesday told the Board of Appeals how the city is implementing Senate Bill 35, the 2018 state law that streamlines ministerial approval of certain housing projects, and briefed commissioners on AB 831, the 2020 law that requires attention to ancillary permits.

Esmeralda Jardines, Planning Department staff, said SB 35 provides a ministerial pathway for projects that meet objective design standards and affordability thresholds (generally above 50% affordable and typically netting at least two units) and removes discretionary entitlements and CEQA review for eligible projects. “SB 35 became effective January 2018,” Jardines said, and planning’s implementation included Director’s Bulletin No. 5 and an informational packet in January 2018.

Jardines and Principal Planner Kate Connor reviewed eligibility rules — projects must meet objective, verifiable standards (setbacks, unit exposure, open space), comply with prevailing‑wage and skilled‑workforce provisions where applicable, and avoid demolition of historic resources. Staff said planning must determine basic eligibility within 60 days for projects with 150 units or fewer and within 90 days for larger projects, with design review timelines of up to 90–180 days depending on size.

Planning staff said 16 SB 35 projects have been approved to date, concentrated largely on the city’s east side, and gave examples of projects ranging from small senior housing to larger mixed‑income developments with AMIs spanning roughly 30%–110%. Jardines also described AB 831’s requirement that local governments not “inhibit, chill, or preclude” ministerially approved projects and said Planning intends to track ancillary permits — sidewalk, street trees, loading — to ensure SB 35 approvals are not effectively blocked by later actions.

Commissioners pressed staff on practical issues: whether SB 35 projects must be fully code‑compliant (staff: yes, unless a project pursues the State Density Bonus waivers, in which case those waivers are treated as part of compliance) and whether Planning has dedicated SB‑35 reviewers (staff: no, projects are reviewed by existing planning division staff with support from a housing advisory team). Several commissioners and members of the public raised concerns that SB 35’s ministerial process has no required neighborhood notice, producing community confusion; staff said public education and the board’s appeals process are important avenues to address those gaps.

The presentation concluded with staff saying they will pursue an ancillary‑permit audit under AB 831 to confirm that ministerial approvals are not chilled by follow‑on permit requirements.