The Builder’s Remedy has been applied again to construct more suburban development in Santa Clara County, this time at 6591 Woodcliff Court, San Jose. The application is the second directly linked to Michael LaBarbera of Terracommercial Real Estate and is similar to a 320-unit application for 1515 Half Road in Morgan Hill. The three plans will reshape several acres along the county’s urban edges with more single-family housing.
The application for 6591 Woodcliff Court is the smallest of the three applications. LaBarbera plans to separate the 6.27-acre property into 13 parcels. 13 new single-family homes will be constructed, including four detached additional dwelling units. Around twenty percent of the 17 units will be deed-restricted as affordable to low-income households to meet requirements to use the Builder’s Remedy. The application indicates the four ADUs will be designated as such.
6591 Woodcliff Court, image by Google Street View
The Builder’s Remedy is a recently-activated state code provision, originally passed in 1990. The law grabbed headlines earlier this year during a state review period for city housing elements. Cities with non-compliant housing elements are now subject to the Builder’s Remedy, and with a renewed focus on the rule, developers are starting to use it. The law allows the applicant to forgo restrictive local zoning to increase residential capacity. While originally envisioned to spur more dense urban housing that could benefit from public transportation like 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park, these three applications show the law could apply to suburban expansion.
Earlier this week, YIMBY covered the application by LaBarbera for a 41-unit suburban development at 19780 Almaden Road. Further south in Morgan Hill, an unidentified applicant submitted plans for a 320-unit application with 20% of the units as affordable housing. All three applications were submitted at similar times.
Terracommercial has yet to reply to a request for comment to confirm if they are involved with the Morgan Hill application.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Yes 50 more houses chipping away at the rest of the towns green space will solve the housing crisis.
LOL. NIMBYs are so intellectually empty.
A curious NIMBY tactic is to state that if the housing crisis cannot be fixed in one fell swoop, there should be NO supply increase in housing.
Remember, the ancestors of today’s NIMBYs are the people who opposed the transition from the Paleolithic Age to the Neolithic Age.
I can’t really be certain but I read that as a condemnation of the cynical use of a mechanism meant to remedy the housing crisis being employed to perpetuate the building patterns that contribute to it in the first place.
This guy YIMBYs. Agreed, builder remedy shouldn’t have applied for SFH suburban neighborhoods, which rarely see so much local nimby opposition anyway. The resistance to these projects is legitimately based on fixing land use mistakes, and we need to stop perpetuating this kind of low density development in SJ.
Greenfield Suburban Sprawl is nothing to celebrate.
It is a hell of a lot better than NO housing.
Disagree on this. Increasing the amount of publicly accessible open space further contributes to the livability of high density residential development.