Sen. Becker pushes bill to limit misuse of builder’s remedy after Menlo Park filing

Sen. Becker introduced SB 457, a bill to narrow ambiguities in California’s housing element and builder’s remedy rules after what she and others described as opportunistic filings such as the 80 Willow project in Menlo Park. The bill would treat a local housing element as substantially compliant as of the date the local legislative body adopted it if the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) later approves that same element. The bill would also require that an applicant submit a fully complete project application (not a one‑page placeholder) before invoking the builder’s remedy.

Becker said the measure “clarify[s] and strengthen California’s housing laws” and is intended to prevent developers from exploiting administrative review windows or provisional filings. She described the Menlo Park proposal — three towers up to 37 stories with significant office and hotel components and 20% of units targeted at 80–120% of area median income — as emblematic of projects that “exploit state housing laws under the guise of affordability.”

Environmental and land‑use advocates testified in support. Jessica Wallander of Green Foothills told the committee SB 457 would stop “opportunism” that places large builder’s remedy applications on farmland, flood plains and wildfire‑prone hillsides with little infrastructure information. Ray Mueller, San Mateo County supervisor, said Menlo Park had adopted a housing element in good faith, yet a developer filed a preliminary builder’s remedy application that he described as “a speculative mega project” disconnected from local planning and services.

Members raised timing and retroactivity concerns. Senator Cabaldon and others said they viewed the builder’s remedy as a blunt but necessary tool to motivate jurisdictions to plan, and cautioned against retroactive changes that would disturb past decisions. Senator Cortese raised a “pipeline” question about when an application is sufficiently “ripe” for builder’s remedy treatment; Becker replied the bill targets misuse and does not eliminate the builder’s remedy where jurisdictions are truly out of compliance.

Industry and housing advocates offered differing views. Silvio Ferrari of the California Building Industry Association opposed the bill unless amended, arguing it could undercut recent changes (cited as AB 1886 and other measures) that removed local self‑certification and preserved the builder’s remedy as a remedy for noncompliant jurisdictions. Public Interest Law Project and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation also opposed, arguing AB 1886 created a clearer, bright line for compliance and that applicants should submit elements to HCD on time to avoid the builder’s remedy.

Becker said she would not accept amendments at the hearing and asked members for an aye vote when the hearing resumes. Because the committee started without quorum the bill was placed “on call” and members signaled continued conversation would be needed on retroactivity and timing.

Ending: The committee’s discussion split along lines of protecting local planning timelines versus preventing procedural exploitation; members requested technical fixes and additional conversations on retroactivity before final action.