Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff brief council on Builders Remedy, state housing timelines and local implications
Summary
City staff and legal counsel explained the Builders Remedy, Housing Accountability Act, SB 330 vesting rules and recent state guidance — and how those laws affected Walnut Creek’s housing element timeline and exposure to a Builders Remedy application.
City staff and the city attorney’s office briefed the Walnut Creek City Council on April 15 on the Builders Remedy provisions of California housing law, the Housing Accountability Act, and related statutes and court decisions that determine when a local housing element is “substantially compliant.” The meeting was framed as a policy briefing; staff said the session was not a public hearing on any specific project.
Community Development Director Erica Vandenbrand outlined the statutory framework. She said Builders Remedy is a provision of the Housing Accountability Act that allows certain housing projects to proceed under a streamlined standard if a jurisdiction lacks a substantially compliant housing element; historically those projects required a share of affordable units (previously 20%, lowered in 2024 to 13% in state law). Vandenbrand and city legal counsel emphasized that a jurisdiction may only lawfully find a housing element substantially compliant if either the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issues a letter of substantial compliance or a court determines substantial compliance. The staff presentation cited recent related legislation — including SB 330 (streamlining and preliminary application vesting), and AB 1886 (clarifying when an adopted element is “substantially complete” for Builders Remedy purposes) — and noted that the 2023–24 cycle had novel procedural complications.
Assistant City Attorney Claire Lai and City Attorney Steve Mattis discussed the city’s local timeline. Staff described a multistep review with HCD, including initial submission before the January 31, 2023 deadline, subsequent HCD comments, council adoption (the city adopted an amended element on Aug. 1, 2023) and an October 24, 2024 HCD letter finding the housing element in substantial compliance. Staff explained how the statutory deadlines, HCD review windows and the SB 330 preliminary‑application vesting rules combined to create the period in which the city was potentially exposed to Builders Remedy filings.
Council members asked detailed procedural questions about timing, HCD communications, whether the city could have pursued a court determination earlier and how the council could participate in a Builders Remedy review if one legally applied. Staff explained that in Walnut Creek the entitlements required for a Builders Remedy application (planning and subdivision approvals) are typically decided at the planning commission level with appeal rights to the council; the council may become involved on appeal or via other legal avenues. Multiple council members and the mayor expressed frustration with the state review process and noted ongoing legislative efforts to clarify timelines and standards.
During public comment, two speakers urged judicial review of the city’s August 1 adopted element as the operative certification date, asserting that a court could find the element substantially compliant as of the council adoption date. Staff reiterated that the briefing was informational and that any specific Builder’s Remedy project would follow its own entitlement and environmental review process, including design review, planning commission hearings and the public CEQA process.
Staff recommended that the council accept the briefing and monitor proposed state legislation and legal developments affecting Builders Remedy and housing‑element compliance.
