No on K Does Not Mean the Builder’s Remedy For Sausalito

The city and the promoters of Measure K have deceptively argued that Measure K is necessary to fulfill the obligations of the RHNA process and to avoid the “Builder’s Remedy.”

This is not the case.

The primary technique that the city has used to advance this deception is to conflate Measure J and Measure K when discussing the issues. For example, the city attorney’s “impartial” ballot analysis improperly analyzes both measures together, rather than independently.

Measure J must pass to provide sufficient housing numbers to meet the requirement, but Measure K does not. Measure J alone provides the necessary rezoning to reach the RHNA numbers. Without Measure K we still have a surplus of housing units.

The argument that the city will be subjected to fines and the “Builder’s Remedy” is predicated on the belief that the State HCD would de-certify our City for non-compliance with our RHNA requirements even if we have met our numbers.

Such an outcome is highly improbable. The State is not going to tell us that we failed to meet our housing requirements when we have in fact exceeded the ludicrous number that they provided us with.

If the State took such a position, we can pursue litigation to obtain a judgement from the Superior Court that states we are in compliance.

This isn’t speculation- it is in our Housing Element as a likely course of action if Measure K does not pass:

Sausalito Amended Housing Element, page 14

The Builder’s Remedy will not apply if we have met our housing goals. Measure J does so, with room to spare.