Senate debate over SB 457 centers on builder’s‑remedy loopholes after Menlo Park project

Senators debated SB 457, a bill by Sen. Josh Becker that would clarify when jurisdictionsmay be treated as having a substantially compliant housing element and tighten the definition of a ‘‘complete’’ housing application so the builder’s remedy cannot be invoked on placeholder filings.

Becker told the committee the bill ‘‘ties substantially compliant housing elements to the date of local adoption, subject to later confirmation by HCD or a court,’’ and said the measure aims to prevent speculative filings that exploit administrative review delays. He said projects such as the 80 Willow proposal in Menlo Park — a developer filing that he and witnesses described as including large office components and towers up to 37 stories — illustrated the need for the change.

The bill attracted testimony both for and against. Jessica Wallander of Green Foothills said dozens of builder’s‑remedy applications had been filed on farmland and hazard‑prone sites and urged support for a requirement that a complete application be required to invoke the remedy. Ray Mueller, San Mateo County supervisor, described the Menlo Park filing as ‘‘a speculative mega project’’ and said SB 457 ‘‘strikes the right balance’’ to protect jurisdictions that had done the work to adopt housing elements.

Opponents, including Silvio Ferrari of the California Building Industry Association and attorneys from the Public Interest Law Project and California Rural Legal Assistance, said recent legislation (cited during testimony as AB 1886) already set firm rules for housing‑element compliance and that SB 457 risks creating a pathway to avoid consequences for late or noncompliant local housing elements. They recommended other legislative approaches, such as AB 650, as alternatives.

Committee members sought clarifications about retroactivity, the timing of HCD review, and whether the bill would punish jurisdictions that submitted elements on time but received slow administrative review. Senator Cabaldon said he opposed retroactive changes that would make the Legislature ‘‘the city council in the sky,’’ while Senator Cortese and others voiced procedural and pipeline concerns. Becker said the bill would not eliminate the builder’s remedy and would preserve protections for genuinely noncompliant jurisdictions.

At the committee’s conclusion the bill was moved; later floor and committee roll calls recorded conflicting procedural steps and the item was left "on call" several times. In final recorded action in the transcript SB 457 did not advance in its form during this hearing (the committee later recorded reconsideration and a failing tally in the transcript). The transcript records extensive back‑and‑forth and requests for further technical working sessions.

SB 457 drew sustained public turnout from Menlo Park and neighboring jurisdictions; Fire District and local elected officials testified about infrastructure and public‑safety concerns tied to the specific Menlo Park filing discussed during the hearing. Supporters and opponents agreed on the need to reduce gaming of statutory processes, but disagreed about whether SB 457’s draft language would produce unintended consequences for local governments that had taken steps to comply with state deadlines.

The committee conversation concluded with the author agreeing to continue technical conversations with interested stakeholders.