|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Proposed legislation by State Sen. Josh Becker that would have curbed the contentious zoning tool known as builder’s remedy faltered on Tuesday afternoon when the Senate Housing Committee opted not to advance it, according to Becker.
The legislation, known as Senate Bill 457, was inspired by zone-busting projects like 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park, a mixed-use development in Menlo Park with a height of 461 feet. It is one of dozens of projects that had been proposed through the use of builder’s remedy, a state provision that applies to jurisdictions without a state certified housing plan.
Palo Alto saw 10 builder’s remedy applications before it secured approval for its Housing Element from the state Department of Housing and Community Development in August 2024. The largest of these is a mixed-use project with 382 apartments at 156 California Ave, site of Mollie Stone’s. The project includes two residential towers, one with 17 stories and the other with 11 stories.
Palo Alto’s Department of Planning and Development Services recently deemed the application from the project developer, Redco Development, complete. The project will still have to undergo environmental analysis, which would need to be approved by the City Council, before it gets the final green light.
Even among Peninsula cities that have struggled with builder’s remedy projects, the Becker bill proved to be somewhat divisive. The Palo Alto City Council voted 4-3 earlier this month to support the bill, while the Mountain View council opted not to back it but to maintain a “watch” position.
In a statement after the Tuesday meeting, Becker, D-Menlo Park, called SB 457 a “focused, practical bill” that tried to address an recent influx of applications that have eroded public trust. Many of the projects that have been submitted under builder’s remedy fail to include significant affordable housing, he noted. And some communities in his district have been inundated with builder’s remedy applications. Saratoga, he said, received 22 of them.
“I have worked to ensure that SB 457 struck a fair balance to uphold accountability while giving cities that do the right thing the ability to plan responsibly,” Becker said. “California’s housing crisis demands laws that are reliable, predictable, and fair. While I am disappointed that this bill didn’t advance, I remain committed to pushing for reforms that support real affordability and restore confidence in our housing policies.”
Critics of the bill have contended that SB 457 would allow cities that have failed to take the necessary actions to approve housing plans to escape consequences. Mountain View City Council member Lucas Ramirez, who opposed the bill, suggested at a council meeting last week that the legislation would “empower bad actor cities to take actions that would allow them to avoid contributing their fair share of housing.”
The Becker bill tried to curb builder’s remedy in two ways. First, it would have required developers who propose projects that rely on builder’s remedy to submit complete applications rather than conceptual “pre-applications” without refined designs or environmental analyses.
Second, it would have shortened the window for when builder’s remedy applies. Currently, that window ends when the HCD certifies the housing plan as substantially compliant with state law. SB 457 would have set the deadline to the date that a jurisdiction approves its own plan, provided that this plan ultimately wins state approval.
Supporters of the bill argued that this reform is needed to ensure that cities that approve housing plans don’t get penalized because of the length of the HCD’s review period, which often takes several months.
“This bill simply asks legislators to correct their unintended consequences and not punish thousands of citizens in housing-compliant cities with egregious projects,” Palo Alto Mayor Ed Lauing, who supported the legislation, said in a statement.
Becker said that the bill was crafted to prevent abuse of a system that was designed to push cities toward meaningful housing reform. Builder’s remedy, he said, should be “a tool of last resort to get urgently needed, equitable housing built.”
“But when it’s used to push luxury towers that sidestep community standards and strain public services, we all lose,” Becker said.
Becker said in an interview Tuesday afternoon that many people agreed that builder’s remedy should be addressed but had issues with the retroactivity in the bill, which they suggested would create a legal “gray area.” The bill, as proposed, would have made some projects that had already been submitted, including 80 Willow, ineligible.
He said he was encouraged by support from elected officials and environmental advocates in his district, including council members in Palo Alto and Menlo Park and San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, as well as advocates from Green Foothills. Becker sand he will continue to explore ways to reform builder’s remedy.
“I’m going to keep fighting this, keep having conversations with leadership in the Senate and talk to folks in both houses,” Becker said.
Mountain View Voice Reporter Emily Margaretten contributed to this report.
This was a bad bill that deserved to die. No Builders’ Remedy, no accountability for cities. Remember, the purpose of the Builders’ Remedy is not to create these huge projects, like Willow Rd. The purpose is to get cities to comply with the Housing Element process. If Menlo Park hadn’t been so late with its HE, there wouldn’t have been a 460-foot development.
One could argue that cities put too much effort into virtue signalling with the long drawn out process to create housing elements and they might clean up their acts and stop trying to be perfect and get things in on time. But it’s also the issue of the HCD being too rigid about what they “approve.” The HCD approval wasn’t required when Builders Remedy became law.