2 lawsuits sparked by builder’s remedy projects have been filed against Santa Cruz County: one from a group of residents opposed to a development and another by a developer of a project that he says the board failed to act fast enough.
Santa Cruz County has been sued in response to two pending builder’s remedy housing projects that have been proposed in unincorporated territory. The county has been sued both for approving a project along Capitola Road and, separately, failing to approve another project along Paul Sweet Road quickly enough.
SANTA CRUZ — Santa Cruz County is being sued from all sides when it comes to builder’s remedy housing projects proposed in unincorporated areas. A group of Live Oak residents calling themselves the Supporters of Reasonable Development for Live Oak filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the county Board of Supervisors in Santa Cruz County Superior Court March 17. The court filing pertains to athat was given the nod of approval in expedited fashion by the board Feb. 10, citing builder’s remedy eligibility. But the residents, represented by attorney Mark Wolfe, contend that the board’s decision rests on a “series of fundamental legal errors” and the development should, instead, be subject to local housing requirements and input. Separately, Santa Cruz-based developer Workbench filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition or other extraordinary relief against the county and its Planning Commission Monday on the basis that a proposed 105-unit project at 3500 Paul Sweet Road faced unwarranted delays. Listed alongside Workbench in filing the legal challenge against the county is Sweet Developments LLC, described as a limited liability company and owner of the property where the development is planned.from 2021 to 2024, listed himself as Sweet Development’s managing member in the court filing. He shared the same information induring a four-month window in late 2023 and early 2024 when the county’s Housing Element was deemed to be out of compliance by state officials. When the lapse occurred, consequences detailed within the California Housing Accountability Act referred to as builder’s remedy took effect. This prevented the county from denying projects because they failed to meet local General Plan and zoning standards that govern density and environmental criteria, for example. Unless the county presents specific, objective adverse health or safety findings supported by substantial evidence, it cannot deny or condition projects submitted while the Housing Element was out of compliance. “It’s disappointing that taxpayer resources will now be utilized in litigation over projects the county did not bring forward, involving a law the county did not write,” county spokesperson Jason Hoppin wrote in a statement. “We look forward to a speedy resolution.”Questioning the validity of the county’s Housing Element approval timeline is the foundation of the Live Oak group’s legal challenge. The plaintiffs, which include residents Michael Reis, Chris Deming and Tammy Guerrero, asserted that the county’s Housing Element, which guides planning over an eight-year period, was actually in compliance as of March 15, 2024, based on emails and memos obtained through a public records request. Because the preliminary application for 841 Capitola Road was submitted by Workbench April 9, 2024, the residents claim its builder’s remedy status should be revoked and the project should be subject to local control, which would drastically reduce the number of allowable units.“For Santa Cruz County, that state agency has confirmed in writing that their substantive review of our Housing Element was complete by March 15th, 2024 — the same day that they notified the County that they were ready to certify. The developer filed their Builder’s Remedy application 25 days later. Under state law, Builder’s Remedy wasn’t available, and we’re asking the court to say so,” Reis said in a written statement to the Sentinel. “If we prevail, the project will be subject to the same development standards that apply to everyone; it will not be able to bypass them by exploiting a loophole.” Reis made a similar argument at several public hearings when the project was assessed by the Planning Commission, which has authority to approve builder’s remedy projects, and later at the Board of Supervisors The board’s guidance from its legal counsel at the public hearings was that the state Legislature had ratified the Department of Housing and Community Development’s regulatory interpretation of the law that a jurisdiction is only in compliance “as of the date of HCD’s letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance. Any other letters are not a finding of substantial compliance.” That compliance letter was stamped April 23, 2024, and was later revised to April 12, 2024. County staff also previously asked for technical assistance about this very issue from state housing staff and they confirmed this interpretation. Feeling the pressure of a potentially costly legal proceeding, the board begrudgingly approved the Capitola Road project in February but did appear to be persuaded by complaints from neighborhood residents. About a month later, theto the director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development asking for the county’s Housing Element certification date to be corrected to March 15. The board advocated for this change, in part, because the emails and memos indicate the delay between verbal confirmation of Housing Element completion in March and the April letter appeared to occur due to administrative issues on the part of the state and through no fault of the county. “The fact that HCD has already issued a back-dated letter to reflect missteps on their part provides our Board with further confidence that you, as Director, will agree that the County made all efforts in good faith to comply with State law and submit a compliant Housing Element within the statutory timeframe,” reads the letter, sent March 18 and authored by board Chair Monica Martinez, who was the lone vote against the motion to send it.Though county counsel Jason Heath made it clear during the board’s deliberations that it was within its right to issue the letter, he warned that, once it was mailed off, its existence and the potential response it elicits from the state could put the county in deeper legal jeopardy. The plaintiffs filed nine claims for relief from the court that detailed various alleged violations by the county within the 28-page petition. The document can be viewed within case No. 26CV00891 atwithin state timeline requirements, in turn, adversely impacting the organizations and their project while failing to respond to the urgent housing crisis.“This case demonstrates why California continues to suffer from a housing crisis of epic proportions. failed to carry out their responsibility to adequately plan to accommodate their fair share of the region’s housing need, and because of that failure lost discretion to disapprove certain housing projects,” reads the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Workbench and Sweet Developments by its counsel Patterson and O’Neill PC. “ have attempted to avoid the consequences of their actions by dragging their feet and refusing to issue an approval for a desperately needed housing project, keeping the application in limbo.” This project’s preliminary application was submitted April 22, 2024, thereby vesting its builder’s remedy status. The six-story, 105-unit proposal is located just up the street from Dignity Health Dominican Hospital and sits right behind Dominican Oaks, a retirement facility with more than 200 residents. In all, six of the units will be restricted to extremely low-income limits, according to the county. The Planning Commission reviewed the project at a Jan. 14 meeting, but rejected a staff recommendation to formally approve it, electing instead to seek more information that could address safety concerns. Dozens of residents from the retirement home and some representatives from the hospital spoke out in strong opposition to the project, citing a litany of issues with safety, emergency access, parking, construction impacts and affordability frustration. Again, the county’s legal staff walked the commission through why the project qualified for builder’s remedy and, therefore, no additional studies or requirements could be imposed. But a majority of commissioners remained unconvinced. Through a 4-1 vote, the commission delayed review of the project and asked for more information despite county staff saying they lacked authority to gather it. The project was due to come back to the Planning Commission Wednesday, but the litigation caused the item to get dropped from the agenda. The plaintiffs claimed there were three notable deadlines triggered during the county’s formal review of the proposed development that, under state law, required it to either disapprove or approve the project. These deadlines were Oct. 30, 2025, Jan. 15, 2026, and Feb. 17, 2026. But all dates came and went without any decision, further delaying the project and adding to its bottom line, they claimed. Furthermore, Workbench and the property owner pointed to the board’s March letter requesting the Housing Element correction as evidence it was acting in “bad faith” and was apparently attempting to strip the project of its builder’s remedy status. “The County’s refusal to recognize the project’s deemed approved status and to schedule another discretionary hearing, over the objections of Petitioners, is intended to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly drive-up project costs,” reads the petition. The plaintiffs asked the court to weigh in and compel the county to move forward with the project under a builder’s remedy status, while also forking over attorneys’ fees and other related costs.Miss Manners: They won't even set a menu until the guests arriveBay Area weather: Rain is forecast to break the long dry spell. Here's when to expect it.San Jose is clearing its last large homeless encampment. Not everyone wants what comes next Kurtenbach: MLB's SF Giants-Yankees Opening Night Netflix cash-grab proves nothing is sacred in modern sportsGreat America hits 50. It may not make it to 52
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Lowndes County Schools to close 3 campuses amid enrollment decline, budget deficitThe decision was announced during the school board meeting Tuesday night.
Read more »
Missing 66-year-old York County woman last seen walking away from homeYork County Regional police are searching for a 66-year-old woman who was last seen by her family on Wednesday afternoon.
Read more »
County’s refusal to use mental health law to protect people is shockingPeople who are unable to realize they are sick won’t volunteer for help.
Read more »
Weber County grass fire spreads quickly, engulfing nearby camp trailerA grass fire in a Weber County backyard spread quickly, fully engulfing nearby trailers on Wednesday morning.The Weber Fire District said its crews were dispat
Read more »
Teen shot in face at Ocean County Mall, investigation underway, police sayAn investigation is ongoing, police say, after a 17-year-old boy was shot in the face at the Ocean County Mall on Wednesday.
Read more »
California County must pay $6 million to driver who collided with DA’s investigatorJurors rule a District Attorney’s employee ran a red light, causing a crash. Plaintiff’s attorney said he would have accepted $500,000 from county.
Read more »