By Jon Chown
An apartment building planned on Capitola Road that had already been approved by the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission will have to get approval all over again after a unanimous vote by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors at its Dec. 9 meeting.
The project had been pushed forward using “Builder’s Remedy,” which allows housing projects to move ahead, bypassing local restrictions, if a local Housing Element is not in place.
The supervisors voted to take jurisdiction of the approval process, which will mean another public hearing before it can be approved. While doing so, the board also signaled that other projects recently approved under “Builder’s Remedy,” including a housing project on Paul Sweet Road, might also have a second review.
Santa Cruz County was late submitting its required plan to add more housing, called a Housing Element, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. As a result, the county’s Housing Element was not certified until April 12, 2024. Workbench submitted its application on April 9, 2024. Other projects were also submitted during that delicate period. However, according to county staff, the problems were not entirely due to the county as the state admitted that some clerical errors of its own delayed the process.
Neighbors who are against the plan contend that the state had given the county verbal approval of the Housing Element before April 9 and had threatened to sue if the county approved the project without a second hearing. Neighbors also noted that of the 57 units, only four would be low-income or very low-income units. “This is a paltry number considering the concessions that the applicant is receiving. While we support the county’s mandate for infill development, this project is exploitative and disrespectful to the community,” the neighbors’ appeal reads.
County staff recommended supervisors not take jurisdiction. A staff report contends that the neighbors’ argument falls flat because California law clearly states that a jurisdiction is not in compliance before the date on the Department of Housing’s letter of certification, which is April 9, 2024, and that confirmation by phone is not adequate.
Workbench has also threatened to sue and is currently fighting the city of Santa Cruz in court over the denial of a project. Tim Gordon, of Workbench, said he understood the neighbors’ concerns, but housing is critically needed. Because of “Builder’s Remedy” laws, the county would not be able to stop the development and delaying it for a second hearing would only give the neighbors false hope. “And why give them false hope?” He asked the board.
Supervisor Manu Koenig (District 1) said he didn’t think the punishment from the state fit the crime by the county. “It doesn’t feel that we created a situation that needed a remedy when we were doing everything we could to follow state law,” he said.
Koenig said he also had concerns about how the Planning Commission came to its decision. He said commissioners asked for information that was not provided them, and that their questions to county staff were not adequately answered.
“They approved the project and I think they erred in doing so,” Koenig said. “I would like to move that the board take jurisdiction, on the basis that the Planning Commission made an error.”
Koenig added that the board should review any other projects that were approved under “Builder’s Remedy” laws, noting the proposed Sweet Home project at 3500 Paul Sweet Road, a six-story, 105-unit housing development.
“I think it’s incumbent upon us to make a list and check it twice,” Koenig said.
Supervisor Justin Cummings said he didn’t like the way “Builder’s Remedy” was being used either, and that the county really needs to think about what kinds of housing it needs.
“Four-hundred and twenty-five square-foot studios are going for $3,100 per month. Seven hundred-plus square-foot one-bedrooms are going for $4,100 per month. There are very few people in this community that can afford that. When we talk about housing, we need to have the housing that is the best fit for our community,” he said.
None of the supervisors seemed opposed to taking jurisdiction and the vote was quick. The new hearing on the 841 Capitola Road project is to be scheduled to take place within 60 days of the new decision.