|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View has headed off a proposal to back new legislation that could curtail builder’s remedy.
In a unanimous vote, the City Council decided to take a wait-and-see approach to Senate Bill 457 at their Tuesday meeting, neither supporting nor opposing the legislation for now.
City officials put forth a recommendation to support SB 457 as a consent item at the meeting, which typically passes with little deliberation. But Council member Lucas Ramirez pulled the item for discussion, expressing strong opposition to it.
“What I struggle with this bill is that it would, if approved, essentially empower bad actor cities to take actions that would allow them to avoid contributing their fair share of housing,” Ramirez said at the April 22 meeting.
Other council members took a more favorable view without supporting the legislation outright. They instead preferred to adopt a “watch” position to see what kind of changes would be made to the bill in the future.
SB 457, introduced by state Sen. Josh Becker, seeks to limit the use of builder’s remedy, a state law that allows developers to skirt local zoning regulations when cities do not have a compliant housing element.
Currently, a housing element is considered compliant when it is certified by the state. If a jurisdiction fails to submit a compliant housing element on time, then a developer can submit an application for a builder’s remedy project.
SB 457 is proposing to shorten the window of opportunity for when a builder’s remedy application can be submitted, modifying state law so that a housing element is considered compliant once it is adopted by the jurisdiction, assuming that the state eventually certifies it.
SB 457 also requires developers to submit complete applications instead of partial ones.
The legislation is about fairness and would prevent the “misuse” of builder’s remedy by developers, Becker said in a press release last month.
But for some City Council members, the bill goes a step too far.
Ramirez argued that the legislation would allow jurisdictions to “self-certify” their housing elements and potentially avoid the penalties of builder’s remedy when not in compliance with state law.
Requiring developers to submit complete applications also opens the door for cities to act in bad faith and to continuously demand for more information, blocking projects from getting built, he said.
“I feel so strongly that we want to see bad actor cities have some accountability measure imposed on them, I would actually move that we adopt an opposed position,” Ramirez said.
Several speakers at the meeting also urged the council to not support the legislation, claiming that it would take the teeth out of the builder’s remedy.
“Having that threat of the builder’s remedy, I think really does make a difference and is important,” said Mountain View resident Edie Keating. “Otherwise, you have cities just doing a meaningless housing element and having it not come to fruition and not come to housing.”
Other commenters noted that builder’s remedy would not be an issue if jurisdictions submitted compliant housing elements on time, preferably well in advance of the deadline in case of back-and-forth review.
“I think it’s better to just learn the lesson and do it right the next time,” said Mountain View resident Daniel Hulse.
However, Livable Mountain View, a group that advocates for historic preservation, came out in support of SB 457 and urged the council to back the legislation.
“Any changes to the builders remedy policy that would enable prohousing cities to avoid its consequences is a step in the right direction,” said Robert Cox, speaking on behalf of Livable Mountain View. “Our city is a good actor in housing policy, we should be treated accordingly by the state.”
The majority of council members did not oppose SB 457, although most were not fully in favor of it either.
“I was really excited about this concept when I first heard it,” said Council member Pat Showater. “I thought, ‘Oh, this is great.’ But then the more I learned about it, the more I thought, ‘Well, wait a minute, is this exactly the bill we need?’”
Several council members made similar points, expressing a desire to reform builder’s remedy but not entirely convinced that SB 457 struck the right balance.
SB 457 could be amended, said Council member Chris Clark, noting that it was still possible to suggest changes as the bill winds its way through the legislative process.
Reaching a compromise, the council members unanimously supported a watch position.
