3 ms·
I doubt this applies to cities that adopted their housing elements by the Jan 31 deadline and submitted them as revisions that are still pending review by the H
by ak217 4y ago
I doubt this applies to cities that adopted their housing elements by the Jan 31 deadline and submitted them as revisions that are still pending review by the HCD.
I'm sure some of those will still eventually be judged out of compliance and builder's remedy may stand, but for now they're just pending review.
The cities that are likely to actually be subjected to builder's remedy (which will be challenged in court, which might cause delays for any developers trying to use it, but is still a useful bargaining chip) are those marked as "NEW CYCLE". Those cities did not prepare any housing permitting plan submission to the HCD at all by the deadline.
- jeffbee 4y agoYes the question is not whether the plans were deemed to be compliant, it is whether the plans were in fact compliant. The only clear-cut cases are where cities failed to even adopt a plan. Less clear are those cities that are vocally subverting state law. Even less clear are those cities with adopted plans that are marginally compliant, like Berkeley, which helps explain why Berkeley has so far not attracted any "builder's remedy" plans.
- cryptonector 4y agoFrom TFA: | 96 of 101 Bay Area municipalities had their housing elements rejected Then TFA discusses one in particular at some length that did get their HE in by the deadline and had it rejected.