The proposed overhaul, outlined in a newly amended draft of the bill published Tuesday, includes new perks for developers, textual edits to clear up how the law would apply and a new “streamlining” provision that would let developers bypass environmental review and public hearing requirements so long as they pay their workers union-level wages and meet basic environmental requirements.
But the bill would also put a cap on how big builder’s remedy projects can be, while prohibiting its use in industrial-zoned areas. That’s a break from current law, in which the sky—and the California Building Code—is the limit.
“We tried to land this bill in a place where it is a stick—it’s holding our cities accountable—but it’s not overreaching in its scope,” Wicks said.
Wicks’ bill is backed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has ramped up the state Department of Justice’s enforcement of housing production law since coming into office in 2021.
“It has been over 30 years since the builder’s remedy was enacted and it’s remained in effect, largely unchanged, since then,” Bonta said in a statement. The bill is meant to provide clarity to “local governments, planners, developers, and courts,” he added, while also ensuring that housing actually gets built in cities and counties that don’t have certified housing elements, rather than getting stuck in legal limbo.
This is one of at least two bills aimed at tying up the builder’s remedy’s perceived loose ends.
Assembly Bill 1886 by San Diego Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat, would specify that jurisdictions without state certified housing plans would be subject to the builder’s remedy until those plans are passed by local officials and signed off on by the California Housing and Community Development department. That’s a response to cities that have argued that the state’s stamp of approval isn’t necessary.