SB 35 vs AB 2011: Key Differences for Developers

SB 35 and AB 2011 are often discussed interchangeably, but they are different tools that fit different deals. Understanding the differences — and the trade-offs — is essential to picking the right path on a given site.

What each statute actually does

SB 35 (Government Code 65913.4) provides a ministerial approval pathway for qualifying residential and mixed-use projects in jurisdictions that have not met their RHNA targets. AB 2011 (Government Code 65912.100 et seq.) creates a separate ministerial pathway specifically for residential projects on commercial corridors and parking lots.

Both bypass CEQA. Both require prevailing wage. Both are powerful — but they are not substitutes for each other.

Eligibility

SB 35 eligibility turns on the jurisdiction's RHNA performance, the site's general plan and zoning designation, and an array of site exclusions (wetlands, hazardous waste, historic resources, etc.). It is most useful in jurisdictions that are clearly behind on their housing targets.

AB 2011 eligibility is site-typology driven. The site must be on a qualifying commercial corridor or in a qualifying commercial zone, must meet site exclusion criteria similar to SB 35, and must comply with statutory objective standards. The corridor analysis is non-trivial — many sites that "feel" eligible are not, and vice versa.

Affordability requirements

SB 35 affordability is tiered by jurisdiction RHNA performance. In most LA-area jurisdictions, this currently lands at 50% affordable for the streamlined pathway, which is a significant constraint for market-rate developers.

AB 2011 offers a 100% affordable track and a mixed-income track. The mixed-income track has more accessible affordability levels for market-rate developers, typically structured as a percentage of units at defined income tiers.

Labor standards

Both statutes carry prevailing wage requirements. AB 2011 layers in skilled and trained workforce requirements above defined unit thresholds. These obligations need to be priced into the underwriting from day one — not discovered mid-construction.

Where each one fits

SB 35 fits where a developer has the affordability appetite for the deeper requirement and is operating in a jurisdiction with clear RHNA non-performance. AB 2011 fits where the site is on a qualifying corridor and the mixed-income affordability table works for the deal.

In practice, on many LA-area sites we model both pathways alongside the conventional density bonus path before recommending a strategy. The right answer is rarely obvious from the site address alone.

Need hands-on help on a live project? Our SB 35 and AB 2011 streamlining and entitlement strategy services cover this work end-to-end across Southern California.