BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Mountain View City Council isn’t supporting state Sen. Josh Becker’s bill to rein in the Builder’s Remedy, a state law that allows developers to ignore local rules in cities that were late on their state-required housing plans.
Senate Bill 457 will face its first hearing with the Senate Housing Committee on Tuesday, Becker’s office said.
Palo Alto Mayor Ed Lauing and Planning Director Jonathan Lait will be in Sacramento to speak in favor of the bill, while Mountain View representatives have decided to stay home.
Mountain View Councilman Lucas Ramirez said Senate Bill 457 would allow “bad actor” cities like San Jose, Cupertino and Palo Alto to avoid suffering the consequences of being late on their housing plans, while “good actor” cities like Mountain View won’t see any benefit. “This bill would never have helped us, and that’s why I’m frustrated,” Ramirez said at a council meeting on Tuesday.
Ramirez was ready to oppose SB457, but the rest of council decided to watch the bill as it moves through the state Legislature.
“I was really excited about this concept when I first heard it,” Councilwoman Pat Showalter said. “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?’”
What’s the Builder’s Remedy?
The Builder’s Remedy has been on the books for decades as a penalty for cities that were late on their Housing Element, which is a state-mandated plan that describes where housing could go and programs to make housing easier to build.
The Builder’s Remedy rose to prominence in the past few years when the state imposed more requirements and review on cities than ever before. The Housing Element was due on Jan. 31, 2023.
Developers were free to file Builder’s Remedy applications from the deadline until the date cities had their plans certified by the state — a “zoning holiday” as Vice Mayor Emily Ann Ramos called it.
Mountain View received five Builder’s Remedy applications, Palo Alto received 10, and Menlo Park received the largest proposal for three towers reaching 461 feet in height at the former Sunset Magazine headquarters at 80 Willow Road.
What the bill does
SB457 would require developers to submit complete applications rather than preliminary applications that give a general outline of their proposals.
The bill would also close the window from when cities approve their Housing Element and when the state certifies the plan.
Ramirez said cities like San Jose hastily approved their Housing Element before getting any feedback from the state, and cities like Cupertino have asked bad-faith questions to prevent applications from being complete.
Mountain View didn’t approve its 2023-2031 Housing Element until May 26, 2023, after getting state certification.
“We actually did it the right way,” Ramirez said.
Palo Alto City Council voted 4-3 on April 7 to support SB457.
The next day, Mountain View City Council grappled with a Builder’s Remedy application for a seven-story, 80-unit condo building at 294 Tyrella Ave., in a neighborhood of one-story and two-story homes.
Developer Forrest Linebarger invoked the Builder’s Remedy to get around residents who said the development would block sunlight, make parking worse and endanger the intersection at Middlefield Road.
Council was sympathetic to neighbors, many whom were at their first council meeting.
“I’m not happy with this project. I don’t think that it fits into our community well,” Councilwoman Alison Hicks said.
But ultimately council said the city is bound by the Builder’s Remedy.
“It makes me really sad that we won’t be able to do what you ask,” Ramos told residents.
A different bill
Ramirez said on Tuesday that a bill by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Berkeley, will prevent out-of-scale Builder’s Remedy projects in the future. Assembly Bill 1893 allows cities to put some limits on density and rules on design, while relaxing requirements that 20% of units are affordable.
“There were no development standards in state law that limited Builder’s Remedy applications, which is how you get the Sunset project in Menlo Park,” Ramirez said. “But state law now imposes reasonable development standards, so that type of Builder’s Remedy application is illegal now.”
Assembly Bill 1893 became law on Jan. 1, affecting any Builder’s Remedy applications submitted on or after that date, while Becker told the Post that he intends for his bill to be retroactive.
Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt said communities throughout the state are learning about SB457 and want to support the bill, while pro-housing organizations are opposed.
Sunset project
“When we look at a project like 80 Willow, it’s hard to have any reasonable person defend a project like that,” Burt said yesterday. “If the Legislature doesn’t rein in a process that is so obviously egregious, then they risk that there will be a backlash, either through state proposition or through the ballot box.”
The Sunset property is owned by Russian businessman Vitaly Yusufov, the son of a prominent Russian politician with close ties to Vladimir Putin.
Yusufov, through developer Oisin Heneghan’s N17, wants to develop the property with three towers that would have offices, retail, hotel and a total of 665 units of housing. The towers would range from 301 to 461 feet tall.
In his monthly newsletter, Menlo Park Mayor Drew Combs said he supports state-level efforts to clarify the Builder’s Remedy.
“But my specific focus is that Menlo Park is best positioned to avail itself of all arguments and avenues (which could include litigation) to ensure that the city is able to exercise the fullest review of this specific project,” Combs said.
The State Historical Resources Commission will consider adding the Sunset campus to the National Register of Historic Places on May 9, Combs said.
Thank you, Councilman Ramirez! Indeed, SB 457 would allow “bad actor” cities (like Palo Alto where I live) to avoid consequences of being late on their housing plans, while “good actor” cities like Mountain View won’t see any benefit.
Peninsula residents should separate themselves from these housing edicts from Sacramento that threaten to destroy their quality of life. They elect moderate Democrats who get pulled along by radicals in Sacramento who don’t know anything about how risk capital and the construction business work. Like in Oakland and San Francisco government bankruptcy is the result.
Build, build, build says Sacramento. Dense Democrats wonder why most voters are not whole heartedly backing them at the local, state, and national levels. Dense Democrats in Sacramento — and even in local City Councils — want to put in denser and denser housing. A tree here and there, no new plans to boost the infrastructure, fix the roads. There is no room to swing the proverbial cat and these housing “solutions” are unaffordable — and usually an eyesore.
Further out, land is more abundant, homes more affordable, and there is room for new infrastructure, even light manufacturing. Yet Sacramentoi dictates instead, a SV icon like Sunset Publishing’s old site is taken over by a Putin oligarch for monstrous towers. Mollie Stone’s will be replaced by more huge towers by the railroad tracks. Palo Alto and Menlo Park are criticized by the YIMBYS for any resistance to pave over their parking lots to build still more housing. Our neighborhoods will become more and more unfriendly and unlivable.