underlined to the Policy: “Develop new supportive housing and homelessness services at the Coral Street campus, such as a navigation center, and by seeking partnerships and funding to effectuate the Council-adopted vision for the area.”
support to the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz during implementation of their “Moving to Work” program, which their application process for the HUD “Moving to Work” designation that will expand opportunities for financial assistance and vouchers.”
The first proposed edit specifically notes that the City is considering a navigation center in the Coral Street Campus Area, as was discussed during the Coral Street Visioning Plan earlier in 2023. The second proposed edit clarifies that the County’s Moving to Work program has now been approved, so the Policy Objective should support the implementation of the program rather than the program’s application process. This motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
It is important to note that these proposed edits only seek to clarify existing policy language, so they are minor in nature and would not trigger a new public circulation or an additional round of HCD review. The Planning Commission’s action, including the recommended changes, has been posted on the City’s website since November 20, 2023.
Next steps
22.10 Should HCD’s remaining comment be satisfied, they will deem the Housing Element certifiable.
Following that, the document does not become officially certified until City Council adopts it. If HCD has not responded before the Council meeting, they will need to provide a formal response within 60 days from the November 14, 2023 submittal.
The Housing Element contains a plethora of objectives that require significant staff efforts.
Many items require ongoing tracking of statistics, and staff are already working on updates to work processes to capture those statistics. Other objectives require time-specific actions, such as preparation of new policies or updates of City codes to align with state law. For example, the following two objectives are included in the workplan:
1.2d. Adopt rezonings in the Ocean Street Area Plan so that they align with the General Plan development standards. Timeframe: Perform community outreach and the necessary environmental review to draft rezonings for the Ocean Street Area Plan to be presented to presented to Planning Commission and City Council December 2024, and upon approval, submit the rezonings to the Coastal Commission as a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
1.3g. Adopt zoning changes by January 2027 to align development standards and use allowances with the maximum intensity already allowed under state law, following a comprehensive review. Zoning changes will include heights and lot coverages among other development standards. State law requires that properties be allowed to achieve their maximum intensity using either General Plan or Zoning Ordinance standards. The City follows this law currently by waiving standards that preclude maximum densities; however, this creates uncertainty for developers and community members, and code amendments would remedy that uncertainty. Timeframe: Review development standards by January 2026 and adopt appropriate code changes by January 2027.
The attached Housing Element Workplan Gantt Chart shows the timeline for these efforts that will encompass the vast majority of the Advance Planning team’s workplan in the coming years, particularly the next four to five years, as well as significant efforts for other teams throughout the Planning and Community Development Department as well as in the Economic Development and Housing Department.
Health in All Policies
The goal of Health in All Policies (HiAP) is to ensure that decision-makers are informed about the impacts on the three HiAP pillars of health, equity, and sustainability when reviewing projects and policy options. The Housing Element Update’s key purpose is to support housing options throughout the City for all needs and all affordability levels. It supports health by promoting housing, services, and efficient land use patterns that encourage sustainable living situations, active transportation, and healthy lifestyles. The AFFH component of the Housing Element provides many policies and objectives focused on improving equity in housing and access to resources and assistance programs. The resource conservation and environmental stewardship goal in the Housing Element Policy Plan also provides a variety of policies and objectives to address sustainability.
Therefore, the Housing Element Update meets each of the HiAP pillars.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Housing Element is exempt from further CEQA review per Section 15061(b)(3), given this project consists of activities covered by the “common sense
22.11 exemption” that CEQA allows when a project would not cause a significant effect on the environment.
As proposed, the Housing Element would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. The Housing Element is a policy document and does not provide entitlements to any specific land use projects. It does not make any changes to the 2030 General Plan land use map and does not modify any land use designations, allowed densities, or land use intensities currently established in the 2030 General Plan. It neither entitles, proposes, or otherwise requires the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development, nor does it change the rate or location of new development.
Rather, the goals, policies, and programs established by the Housing Element only facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing consistent with existing and planned uses, as identified in the 2030 General Plan and as mandated under State law. As such, the impacts of the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element and the associated changes to the Safety Element of the General Plan are also covered by the Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the City Council for the 2030 General Plan. The proposed modifications to the Housing Element and Safety Element do not create any impacts on the environment that were not previously evaluated as part of the 2030 General Plan.
All future proposed housing development projects submitted to the City will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA, when required, concurrent with other permitting and regulatory requirements.
Similarly, any future policy changes will be evaluated for CEQA compliance prior to adoption of any such changes.
FISCAL IMPACT: The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update outlines policies and programs that facilitate all types of housing at all affordability levels. This includes continuing existing programs with funding streams currently directed towards affordable housing, supportive housing, and homeless services. The Housing Element also outlines many new programs and quantified objectives that must be included in staff workplans to achieve the goals and policies in the document. These workplan actions are shown together in the attached Housing Element Workplan Gantt Chart. The continuation of existing programs and the addition of new programs called for in the 6th Cycle Housing Element will result in direct staff and consultant costs. The exact costs of these programs are currently unknown. Staff will use ongoing grant funding, such as Community Housing Block Grants, to support some of the programs. New grants will be sought for other efforts identified in the Housing Element. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will help meet some objectives, and other efforts will require general fund expenditures.
The Housing Element seeks to support various housing needs in the community and facilitate the production of new housing. New housing will increase the City’s tax base, but services provided to new residents generally cause new housing to result in net negative fiscal impacts over the long-term. These potential negative impacts are minimized by higher density housing due to greater economies of scale in the provision of services.
22.12 Prepared by:
Matt VanHua
Principal Planner – Advance
Planning
Submitted by:
Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved by:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
3. Safety Element Figures Amendment
4. Safety Element Text Amendment
5. Response Letter to the June 14, 2022 City Council Housing Element Direction
6. Fall 2022 Housing Element Community Survey Summary
7. November 16, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
8. November 16, 2023 Planning Commission Action Summary
9. November 16, 2023 Planning Commission Correspondence
10. October 27, 2023 HCD Letter and City Response to Substantially Comply
11. Housing Element Action Items and Workplan Gantt Chart Also see www.cityofsantacruz.com/housingelement for additional information on community feedback, HCD comment letters, prior drafts, and other information.
22.13 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REPEALING THE 5TH CYCLE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031 AND ASSOCIATED UPDATES TO THE SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN AND FIND THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15061(b)(3) AND FINDING THAT THE CHANGES ARE
COVERED UNDER CEQA THROUGH A REUSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN EIR IN
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,076
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Government Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Government Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the Legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years;” and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City) to adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 3,736 housing units, comprised of 859 very-low income units, 562 low-income units, 709 moderate-income units, and 1,606 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City has prepared the Housing Element 2023-2031 (the Housing Element) in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code sections 65352 – 65352.5 the City noticed all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission, to the jurisdiction abutting the City’s borders (County of Santa Cruz), to the school district, and the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. No California Native American tribe
22.14 requested consultation; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last 18 months including but not limited to: a study session before the City Council on June 12, 2022; two public workshops on September 29, 2022 and April 4, 2023; a survey made available to the public from September 29, 2022 to November 10, 2022; and the first public review draft of the Housing Element presented before the Planning Commission on April 20, 2023 and the City Council and April 25, 2023; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on March 24, 2023, the City posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 30-day review period, and on May 10, 2023, after responding to public comments, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2023, HCD met with the City to discuss the adequacy of the draft Housing Element, and based upon this, City staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and data; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings and requested public comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, after responding to public comments, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, the City received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings and requested public comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2023, after responding to public comments, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2023, HCD met with the City to discuss the adequacy of the draft Housing Element, and based upon this, City staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and data; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings and requested public comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2023, after responding to public comments, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2023, the City received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element; and
22.15 WHEREAS, on November 3, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings and requested public comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, after responding to public comments, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for its review; and WHEREAS, on November 16, the Planning Commission held a duly and properly noticed public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element and associated updates to the Safety Element of the General Plan and find that the proposed changes are exempt from CEQA under section 15601(b)(3) and finding that the changes are covered under CEQA through reuse of the General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element and reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including findings by The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the City’s response to HCD’s findings, the staff report, and all attachments, and oral and written public comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
2. General Plan Amendment Findings. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendment is deemed to be a public necessity in that the proposed amendment serves and furthers the general community welfare and good zoning practice and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and any adopted area or specific plan.
3. The Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq., and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as discussed and reviewed with HCD.
4. Based on substantial evidence in the record, existing uses on the nonvacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and, therefore, do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period. This finding is based on the methodology, market conditions, development trends, recent experience with approved and pipeline projects redeveloping non-vacant sites, development interest, and existing sitespecific conditions. This analysis is further detailed in Appendix G of the Housing Element in the Development Trends and Demand section and the Infill Opportunity Areas section.
5. As required by Government Code Section 65585(e), the City Council has considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development included in the Department’s letter to the City dated October 27, 2023, consistent with Government Code Section 65585(f), and as described in the attachment of the agenda report entitled “October 27, 2023 HCD Letter and City Response to Substantially Comply, incorporated herein, the City Council has changed the Housing Element in response to the findings of
22.16 the Department to substantially comply with the requirements of State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD.
6. The 2015-2023 5th Cycle Housing Element is hereby repealed in its entirety.
7. The City Council considered the supporting documentation and approves the 2023-2031 6 th Cycle Housing Element, plus any non-substantive edits or corrections made as part of a submittal to HCD or as directed by HCD after their review of a submittal.
8. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council.
9. Resolution No. NS-29,076 is hereby rescinded.
10. The Director of Planning and Community Development or designee is hereby directed to file all necessary material with the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification.
11. The Director of Planning and Community Development or designee is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Government Code Sections 65357 and 65589.7.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED:
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
22.17 City of Santa Cruz
2023-2031 Housing Element
22.18 22.19
City of Santa Cruz
2023-2031 Housing Element
SECOND HCD LETTER REVISIONS
NOVEMBER 2023
PREPARED BY:
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 (714) 939-1030
22.20 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
22.21 Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Acknowledgments
City Council
Fred Keeley, Mayor
Renee Golder, Vice Mayor
Sandy Brown
Sonja Brunner
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Scott Newsome
Martine Watkins
Planning Commission
Pete Kennedy, Chair
Julie Conway, Vice Chair
Cyndi Dawson
Timerie Gordon
Sean Maxwell
John McKelvey
Michael Polhamus
City Council Housing Element Subcommittee
Fred Keeley, Mayor
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Scott Newsome
Planning and Community Development Department
Lee Butler, Director of Planning & Community Development Matthew VanHua, Principal Planner
Clara Stanger, Senior Planner
Jessica de Wit, Housing and Community Development Manager Jessica Mellor, Principal Management Analyst
Andrea Inouye, Management Analyst
Katherine Donovan
Kimley-Horn and Associates (Consultant)
Bill Wiseman, Project Director
Ines Galmiche, Project Manager
Dave Barquist, Project Advisor
Bryant DeLaTorre
Jake Zielinski
Jacqueline Tran
Junhyun Kim
Alvar de la Torre
Evelyn Burr
Santa Cruz Community, Local Organizations, and Stakeholders
22.22 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
22.23 Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 B. State Requirements............................................................................................................. 1-1
1. State Requirements......................................................................................................... 1-1
2. Regional Housing Needs Assessment.............................................................................. 1-3
3. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements................................................................. 1-4
4. Public Participation......................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2: Policy Plan ................................................................................................
A. Housing Goals..................................................................................................................... 2-2 B. Housing Policies .................................................................................................................. 2-3
1. Housing Production......................................................................................................... 2-4
2. Affordable Housing....................................................................................................... 2-16
3. Special Needs and Homelessness.................................................................................. 2-23
4. Housing Assistance ....................................................................................................... 2-35
5. Neighborhood Vitality................................................................................................... 2-37
6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing........................................................................... 2-42
7. Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship.............................................. 2-50 C. Quantified Objectives....................................................................................................... 2-56 Appendix A: Community Engagement ............................................................................
A. Summary of Community Engagement............................................................................... A-2
1. Community Workshop #1............................................................................................... A-2
2. Online Community Survey.............................................................................................. A-3
3. Neighborhood Events..................................................................................................... A-4
4. Focus Groups.................................................................................................................. A-6
5. Planning Commission and City Council Meetings........................................................... A-7
6. City Council Housing Element Subcommittee................................................................. A-7
7. Other Outreach .............................................................................................................. A-7
8. Housing Element Update Webpage............................................................................... A-8 B. Community Survey Summary Report.................................................................................. A-9 C. Public Review Draft Feedback.......................................................................................... A-10 D. Community Letters and Input........................................................................................... A-11 Appendix B: Review of Past Performance ........................................................................
A. Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs..................................................... B-2
1. Seniors.............................................................................................................................. B-2
2. Persons with Disabilities................................................................................................... B-3
3. Persons Experiencing Homelessness................................................................................ B-4
4. Extremely Low-Income Households................................................................................. B-7
22.24 Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
5. University Students .......................................................................................................... B-8 B. 2015-2023 Program Accomplishments............................................................................... B-9 Appendix C: Housing Needs Assessment .........................................................................
A. Population Characteristics.................................................................................................. C-2
1. Population Growth ........................................................................................................... C-2
2. Age Characteristics........................................................................................................... C-3
3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics.......................................................................................... C-4 B. Economic Characteristics.................................................................................................... C-6
1. Employment and Wage Scale........................................................................................... C-6 C. Housheold Characteristcs.................................................................................................... C-9
1. Household Type................................................................................................................ C-9
2. Household Size ............................................................................................................... C-10
3. Household Income ......................................................................................................... C-11 D. Housing Problems............................................................................................................. C-14
1. Overcrowding................................................................................................................. C-16
2. Overpayment (Cost Burden)........................................................................................... C-17 E. Special Needs Group ......................................................................................................... C-19
1. Seniors............................................................................................................................ C-19
2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities................................................... C-20
3. Large Households........................................................................................................... C-23
4. Single-Parent Households .............................................................................................. C-24
5. Farmworkers.................................................................................................................. C-25
6. Extremely Low-Income (ELI) and Poverty Status............................................................ C-25
7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness.............................................................................. C-26
8. Students ......................................................................................................................... C-28 F. Housing Stock Characteristics........................................................................................... C-29
1. Housing Growth.............................................................................................................. C-29
2. Housing Types................................................................................................................ C-29
3. Housing Availability and Tenure..................................................................................... C-29
4. Housing Age and Conditions........................................................................................... C-32
5. Housing Costs and Affordability ..................................................................................... C-34 Appendix D: Fair Housing Assessment ............................................................................
A. Assessment of Fair Housing................................................................................................ D-2
1. TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.......................................................................................... D-2
2. Patterns of Integration and Segregation ......................................................................... D-5
3. Access to Opportunities ................................................................................................ D-29
4. Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement....................................................... D-39 B. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ........................................................... D-65
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach....................................................................... D-65
22.25 Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
2. Fair Housing and Civil Rights Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement, Settlements or Judgments ........................................................................................................................................ D-68
3. Fair Housing Laws........................................................................................................... D-68 C. Relevant Factors................................................................................................................ D-69
1. Background..................................................................................................................... D-69
2. University of California – Santa Cruz.............................................................................. D-70
3. Investments.................................................................................................................... D-70 D. Contributing Factors ......................................................................................................... D-71 E. AFFH Summary................................................................................................................. D-73
1. District 1........................................................................................................................ D-75
2. District 2......................................................................................................................... D-77
3. District 3......................................................................................................................... D-78
4. District 4........................................................................................................................ D-79
5. District 5......................................................................................................................... D-80
6. District 6......................................................................................................................... D-82 Appendix E: Housing Constraints...................................................................................
A. Non-Governmental Constraints .......................................................................................... E-2
1. Land Costs and Constructions.......................................................................................... E-2
2. Availability of Financing.................................................................................................... E-3
3. Economic Constraints....................................................................................................... E-5 B. Environmental Constraints ................................................................................................. E-6
1. Geological and Seismic Hazards....................................................................................... E-6
2. Flood Hazards................................................................................................................... E-7
3. Fire Hazards...................................................................................................................... E-9 C. Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................... E-11
1. Land Use Controls........................................................................................................... E-11
2. Zoning Districts............................................................................................................... E-14
3. Overlay Districts............................................................................................................. E-19
4. Area Plans and Master Plan............................................................................................ E-20
5. Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan...................................................................... E-26
6. Variety of Houses Permitted .......................................................................................... E-27
7. Residential Development Standards.............................................................................. E-36
8. Objective Zoning Standards........................................................................................... E-41
9. Housing for Persons with Disabilities............................................................................. E-42
10. Local Ordinances............................................................................................................ E-44
11. Code Enforcement.......................................................................................................... E-49
12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures........................................................................ E-51
13. Development Fees......................................................................................................... E-60
14. On-/Off-Site Improvements............................................................................................ E-62
15. Building Codes and Code Compliance........................................................................... E-63 D. Infrastructure Constraints................................................................................................. E-64
22.26 Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1. Dry Utilities..................................................................................................................... E-64
2. Water Supply.................................................................................................................. E-65
3. Fire and Emergency Services.......................................................................................... E-67
4. Police Services............................................................................................................... E-67 Appendix F: Housing Resources ....................................................................................
A. Neighborhood Assets...........................................................................................................F-2 B. Resources for Special Housing Needs Groups......................................................................F-2
1. Seniors...............................................................................................................................F-2
2. Persons with Disabilities....................................................................................................F-4
3. Persons Experiencing Homelessness.................................................................................F-5
4. Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households...........................................................................F-9 C. City-Owned Land................................................................................................................F-10 D. Financial Resources............................................................................................................F-10
1. Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) ...........................................................................F-11
2. Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) .....................................................................................F-11
3. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) .............................................................F-12
4. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) ..................................................................F-13
5. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) ..........................................................F-13
6. SB 2 Grant........................................................................................................................F-13
7. Inclusionary Housing (Measure O)................................................................................. F-13 E. Opportunities for Energy Conservation..............................................................................F-14
1. Energy Use and Providers................................................................................................F-14
2. Energy Conservation .......................................................................................................F-14 Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory ..............................................................................
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ G-2
1. General Plan Consistency ................................................................................................. G-4
2. Zoning Consistency........................................................................................................... G-4
3. CEQA Streamlining ........................................................................................................... G-4
4. Transportation.................................................................................................................. G-4
5. Infrastructure and Public Services.................................................................................... G-4
6. Public Input...................................................................................................................... G-4 B. Development Analysis......................................................................................................... G-5
1. Development Trends and Demand................................................................................... G-5
2. Smaller Sites..................................................................................................................... G-9
3. Replacement Units......................................................................................................... G-10
4. Review Process............................................................................................................... G-10 C. Pipeline Projects................................................................................................................ G-13
1. City of Santa Cruz.......................................................................................................... G-13
2. University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC)................................................................... G-15 D. Projected Housing............................................................................................................ G-18
22.27 Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1. Accessory Dwelling Units............................................................................................... G-18
2. Vacant Residential Land ................................................................................................ G-19
3. Infill Opportunity Areas................................................................................................. G-21
4. South of Laurel Area...................................................................................................... G-39 Appendix H: Glossary .................................................................................................
A. Glossary ............................................................................................................................. H-2 B. Acronyms Used ................................................................................................................ H-10
22.28 Introduction
Chapter 1
22.29 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Introduction
The Housing Element is one of the seven State mandated elements included in the Santa Cruz General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and plan for the City’s existing and projected housing needs; it contains a detailed outline and work program of the City’s goals, policies, quantified objectives, and programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for a sustainable future. The Housing Element is reviewed and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State Housing Element law.
Through research and analysis, the Housing Element establishes the City’s official housing policies and objectives and identifies available candidate housing sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals as determined by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). The RHNA quantifies current and anticipated future housing growth within a City. The Housing Element is a critical tool for the City of Santa Cruz to plan for and accommodate current and future growth within the community over the eight-year planning cycle.
State Requirements
1. State Requirements
California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element. As stated in California Government Code Section 65588, local governments are required to review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans every eight years.
The following overarching Housing Element goals are included in California Government Code Section 65580 to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment:
a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
b) The early attainment of this goal requiresthe cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels.
c) The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of the government.
d) Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community. e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and
22.30 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-2
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs. f) Designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality’s housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the State’s housing goals and the purposes of this article.
Table 1-1 summarizes the Housing Element requirements mandated by the State and identifies where these requirements are addressed in this document.
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code
Chapter
Reference in
Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends. Section 65583.a Appendix C.B Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income groups. Section 65583.a Appendix C Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay,
overcrowding, and housing condition.
Section 65583.a Appendix C.F
An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment potential. Section 65583.a Appendix G Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.
Section 65583.a Appendix E.3
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental (private sector) constraints upon maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.
Section 65583.a Appendix E.1
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless. Section 65583.a Appendix C.E.7 Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large families, farm workers, and female-headed households.
Section 65583.a Appendix C.E
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Section 65583.a Appendix F
Identification of Publicly Assisted Housing Developments. Section 65583.a Appendix D.4 Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Appendix D.4
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Section 65583.a Chapter 2 Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Section 65583.b Chapter 2 Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels.
Section 65583.c(1) Appendix G
Identification of strategies to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households.
Section 65583.c(2) Chapter 2
Description of the Public Participation Program in the formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs. Section 65583.d Appendix A
22.31 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-3
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code
Chapter
Reference in
Housing Element
Description of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Section 65583.e Chapter 1 Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Section 8899.50 Appendix D
Review of the effectiveness of the past Housing Element, including the City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period. Section 65583.f Appendix B Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
2. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the methodology used for determining future housing need, by income category, within the State and is based on growth in population, households, and employment. The statewide determination is under the administration of State HCD. The quantified housing need is then allocated among the State’s Council of Governments (COGs). For Santa Cruz, this agency is the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).
In accordance with Section 65584 of the California Government Code, AMBAG is tasked with creating a methodology for distributing the “fair share” of housing need to its member jurisdictions. The City of Santa Cruz’s RHNA allocation is divided amongst four income categories, which are based on the Santa Cruz County’s median income for a family of four. Table 1-2 below identifies the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA by income categories. The Santa Cruz AMI is $119,300 for a family of four, according to the 2022 HCD Income Limits.
Table 1-2: City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Income Category Percent of Area Median Income
(AMI) RHNA
Very Low-Income 0-50% AMI 859
Low-Income 51-80% AMI 562
Moderate-Income 81-120% AMI 709
Above Moderate-Income >120% AMI 1,606
TOTAL RHNA 3,736
*The Santa Cruz County AMI is $119,300 for a family of four, according to 2022 HCD Income Limits.
It is important to note the City was successful in not only meeting its 5th Cycle RHNA across all income categories as of April 13, 2023, but it also permitted more than double the total RHNA units (see Table 1-3). There was a wide range of approved and constructed projects including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units, fully affordable developments, and mixed-use developments with both affordable and market-rate units in combination with commercial space. The City plans to be successful, once again, in meeting the new 6th Cycle RHNA for 2023 through 2031.
22.32 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 1-3: City of Santa Cruz 5th Cycle RHNA
Income Category 5th Cycle RHNA
Permitted Units (as of 4/13/2023)
Count Percent of RHNA
Very Low-Income 180 196 109%
Low-Income 118 433 367%
Moderate-Income 136 233 171%
Above Moderate-Income 313 802 256%
TOTAL: 747 1,664 223%
Additionally, the City received the Prohousing Designation from HCD in August 2023 to further support housing efforts. This designation allows the City to gain competitive points when being considered for funding from several programs, such as: Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), Solutions for Congested Corridors, and Local Partnership Program. The Prohousing Designation also allows the City to become eligible to apply for the new Prohousing Incentive Program grant funding – a $26 million State investment from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund.
3. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The Housing Element is one of a number of elements of the City’s General Plan. The City’s Housing Element identifies programs and resources required for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing to meet the existing and projected needs of its population. The goals, policies, actions, and programs within the Housing Element relate directly to, and must be consistent with, all other elements in the City’s General Plan.
The Housing Element works in tandem with development policies contained in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element is the guide for decision makers on the pattern, distribution, density, and intensity of land uses that, over time, will help the City achieve its vision for the future.
Based on the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses throughout the City, the Land Use Element defines the land use build-out potential. By designating residential development, the Land Use Element places an upper limit on the densities and types of housing units constructed in the City. Land use patterns and decisions are influenced by population and economic growth (which create market demand), transportation access and opportunities, the availability of infrastructure, environmental constraints, and quality of life potential reflected in school quality, parks and recreational opportunities, and cultural amenities. The presence and potential for jobs affects the current and future demand for housing at the various income levels in the City.
The City’s Circulation Element also affects the implementation of the Housing Element. The Circulation Element establishes policies for a balanced circulation system in the City. The CirculationElement aims to reduce the impacts of transportation on the region’s environment and provide a variety of options so individuals can choose to travel by car, bicycle, foot, or public transportation. Consequently, the Housing Element must include policies and incentives that consider the types of transportation infrastructure essential for residential housing units in addition to mitigating the effects of growth in the City.
22.33 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-5
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s other General Plan Elements, and the policies and programs in this Element are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.
4. Public Participation
Government Code Section 65583 requires local governments to make diligent efforts to achieve public participation from all economic segments of the community. Public participation is a key component to the success of this Housing Element. Throughout the update process, the City prioritized outreach to the general public, community organizations, stakeholders, and various agenciesto ensure all voices were heard and all feedback was considered. Appendix A provides a detailed description of outreach conducted and comments received.
22.34 Policy Plan
Chapter 2
22.35 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-2
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy Plan
The provision of housing that fulfills the diverse needs of the community is a fundamental priority for the City. The PolicyPlan provides a statement of the community’s goals, policies, and objectives relative to housing production, rehabilitation, conservation, and assistance for all residents in Santa Cruz. This chapter builds upon the identified housing needs and evaluates constraints and resources to address housing needs in the community. To that end, this chapter is organized around three themes:
• Goals guiding efforts to address housing needs facing the City; • Policies addressing key housing topics and issues, followed by specific actions the City will implement to achieve the City’s goals; and,
• Quantified objectives for housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation for the 2023-2031 planning period.
A.Housing Goals
Goal 1: Housing Production.
Facilitate housing production that meets the present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.
Goal 2: Affordable Housing.
Provide an increased and protected supply of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.
Goal 3: Special Needs Housing and Homelessness.
Provide accessible housing and supportive services that provide equal housing opportunities for special needs populations, including the unhoused and those at risk of homelessness.
Goal 4: Housing Assistance.
Provide increased opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents to rent or purchase homes.
Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality.
Improve housing and neighborhoods throughout Santa Cruz and in designated target areas while protecting residents from displacement.
Goal 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
The City shall seek to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.
Goal 7: Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship.
Fulfill the City’s housing needs while promoting an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearly defined urban boundaries that takes into consideration the existing and potential impacts of sea level rise and climate change, particularly on underserved communities.
22.36 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-3
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
B. Housing Policies
Each Goal is briefly described in the sections below, followed by policies and objectives that would help to achieve that goal. While many objectives achieve more than one goal and policy, they are grouped by the primary policy and goal they would achieve. The policies and objectives are then grouped all together into a table. This table notes additional goals and policies that each objective supports and outline the type of action, timelines, and metrics by which to measure progress.
An important piece of this 6th Cycle Housing Element is the City’s efforts to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). Objectives which further fair housing are marked according to the following topics it addresses:
1. Enhancing housing mobility strategies
2. Encouraging development of new affordable housing in high-resource areas
3. Improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing
4. Protecting existing residents from displacement
In addition, AFFH objectives include information on geographic targets and metrics, as shown below:
AFFH: Topic Reference (with numbers referring to those in the list above); Geographic Target; Metric(s)
Certain objectives may not pinpoint exact geographic targets due to the AFFH results in Appendix D showing no particularly unique areas or due to overall citywide efforts; as such, they are marked to be targeted “Citywide.” In addition, the City has a lot of TCAC High Resource areas, meaning “Citywide” targets would provide greater housing opportunities and affordability in these High Resource areas. Metrics are applied as objectives for the City to work towards over a certain timeframe and a geographic target for the metric (like high resource areas) is identified where possible.
22.37 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-4
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1. Housing Production
Persons and households of different ages, types, income levels, and lifestyles have a variety of housing needs and preferences. Moreover, housing needs evolve over time in response to changing life circumstances. Providing an adequate supply and diversity of housing accommodates changing housing needs of residents, promotes an inclusive community that welcomes all residents, and achieves larger social and equity goals in Santa Cruz.
Policy 1.1
Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate housing through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations that encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.
Providing new housing to accommodate projected employment and population growth and to meet the needs of existing residents is a major objective of the City. To that end, the Housing Element identifies “adequate” sites to accommodate the City’s share of the region’s housing needs from 2023-2031. Adequate sites are those with sufficient development and density standards, water and sewer services, and adequate infrastructure.
To continuously consider the future vision for Santa Cruz and its community is another major objective of the City. Beyond maintaining adequate sites to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need, the City seeks to also proactively allow for residential developments that will meet the community’s ever evolving housing needs. Maintaining adequate sites and flexible development practices allows the City to consider future housing capacity beyond this planning period.
Objectives:
1.1a. Adopt a certified Housing Element with adequate sites to meet a range of housing needs by December 15, 2023.
Timeframe: Revise the Housing Element document in accordance with HCD’s draft review feedback and prepare a final Housing Element document certified by the City Council by December 15, 2023.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.1
1.1b. Maintain an inventory of available vacant and underutilized sites citywide that can accommodate new housing and post that inventory for the public to view.
Timeframe: Review the inventory on an annual basis.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.1
22.38 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-5
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1.1c. Maintain a GIS website that provides mapping of high-quality transit corridors and transit stops to encourage developers to take advantage of additional development allowances when sites are near these areas.
Timeframe: Regularly communicate with METRO and AMBAG and update the GIS maps any time there are changes to high-quality transit corridors and transit stops.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department and Public Works Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.1, 7.3
1.1d. Enforce unit replacement requirements for projects that include the demolition of one or more units, in compliance with Government Code section 66300.
Timeframe: Enforce unit replacement requirements in compliance with Government Code section 66300.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.1
AFFH: 3; Citywide; Apply for every project that includes demolition of one or more units.
1.1e. Facilitate lot consolidation to promote the development of affordable units on small parcels measuring less than 0.5 acres by meeting with property owners to discuss development opportunities and adopting lot consolidation incentives such as more favorable development standards, an FAR density bonus, streamlined processing, or financial incentives.
Timeframe: Adopt lot consolidation incentives to facilitate the development of affordable units on small parcels by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.1
Policy 1.2
Concentrate most new housing in the central core, along major commercial corridors, and on major opportunity sites consistent with the Land Use Element.
Recognizing the limited availability of land and the City’s commitment to preserve open space, the General Plan encourages a compact urban form. High density development, mixed uses, transitand pedestrian-oriented land uses, and other creative housing types are encouraged. To that end,
22.39 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-6
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
the City’s Zoning Ordinance currently allows higher densities, reduced parking requirements, and higher building heights for residential projects in the Central Core and along major corridors.
Objectives:
1.2a. Adopt a program level EIR and approve the Downtown Plan Expansion Project to facilitate housing development in the expansion area.
Timeframe: Release draft EIR and draft Plan by the end of November 2023 and adopt the Final EIR and Downtown Plan Expansion Project by the end of June 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund, REAP 1.0 Grant (State of California) Relevant Policies: 1.2, 5.5
1.2b. Implement and maintain the City’s recently adopted Objective Standards for developments to provide more certainty and further encourage development Citywide and along key transportation corridors, and review the Objective Standards every two years after adoption to determine if further changes are needed to ensure the standards provide the clarity and certainty of outcomes intended. If conflicts exist between the Objective Standards and findings or requirements in the City’s Area Plans or other adopted documents, the Objective Standards will take precedence.
Timeframe: Review the Objective Standards and assess necessary changes by June 2024 and every two years thereafter. Conduct community outreach and present potential changes to the Planning Commission and City Council within six months of each assessment.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 1.3, 7.3
1.2c. Receive California Coastal Commission approval of the Objective Standardswithin the Coastal Zone so that they align with the General Plan development standards.
Timeframe: Submit the Local Coastal Program Amendment by May 2023 and coordinate with the Coastal Commission during their review process to help ensure approval by December 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 7.3
22.40 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-7
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1.2d. Adopt rezonings in the Ocean Street Area Plan so that they align with the General Plan development standards.
Timeframe: Perform community outreach and the necessary environmental review to draft rezonings for the Ocean Street Area Plan to be presented to presented to Planning Commission and City Council December 2024, and upon approval, submit the rezonings to the Coastal Commission as a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2
AFFH: 1, 3; Ocean Street Area Plan; Zoning allows for full General Plan capacity for all parcels in the Area Plan.
1.2e. Support a balance of jobs and housing land uses by only considering residential use in industrial land if it is ancillary to industrial land’s full employment capacity being achieved in an economically viable manner and if it does not negatively impact existing or future industrial uses in the area, except in the vicinity of Coral Street on properties where homeless services or affordable housing are identified in the properties’ respective General Plan Land Use Designations as an allowable use. Adopt a Coral Street Overlay that builds off existing services and resources to provide homeless services and related residential use standardsfor that specific, immediate area.
Timeframe: Review projects that seek to rezone industrial land as they are submitted and seek to maintain employment capacity, and adopt a Coral Street Overlay by June 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2
AFFH: 3; Industrial areas and proposed Coral Street Overlay area; Facilitate development of at least one new project that provides supportive housing or homeless services through the adoption of the Coral Street Overlay.
Policy 1.3
Facilitate the production of residential units through design and compatibility review, use of objective development standards, and regulatory and/or financial incentives.
The City understands the importance of timely and transparent development review processes in facilitating housing development. It also seeks to use its recently approved objective development standards and another regulatory tools to promote the development of housing.
22.41 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-8
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Objectives:
1.3a. Implement a new permit software system to streamline and improve development review processes in permit tracking, electronic submittal, and electronic review of plans.
Timeframe: Implement a new permit software system and have it go live by December 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3
1.3b. Coordinate yearly meetings with the development community (at minimum) to learn about process improvements, housing impediments, and associated policy and code amendments that can be addressed to promote efficiency and predictability in the development review process and implement approaches to improve project feasibility.
Timeframe: Meet annually with the development community to hear their perspectives on process improvements, code changes, housing impediments, and how the City can help address those issues, and take steps to address the issues.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3
1.3c. Adopt code changes that reduce parking requirements, increase shared parking allowances, and increase off-site parking allowances to further facilitate housing, with the ultimate goal to eliminate parking minimums citywide by January 2028.
Timeframe: Review parking standards, conduct community outreach, and adopt parking reduction code amendments, with the goal to eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide by January 2028.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.7
1.3d. Conduct a fee review to determine if the current fee structure covers applicable City costs for projects of varying sizes and scopes.
Timeframe: Conduct a development fee review by June 2024 Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3
22.42 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-9
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1.3e. Adopt code changes that utilize SB 10 allowances to increase residential density in transit rich areas, including evaluation of how deed-restricted affordable housing can be added.
Timeframe: Research SB 10 use in other jurisdictions, conduct community outreach, and present Council with options for SB 10, and adopt code changes by March 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 2.2, 7.3
AFFH: 1, 2; High quality transit corridors and a half-mile radius; Provide for the development of 50 units through SB 10 allowances throughout the planning period.
1.3f. Streamline and reduce costs of building plan check for residential projects of four or fewer units if the building plans have previously been submitted and approved by the City in the same Building Code cycle.
Timeframe: Review similar development pre-approval programs in other jurisdictions and implement a pre-approval program for residential projects of four or fewer units by December 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.5, 2.2. 6.2
1.3g. Adopt zoning changes by January 2027 to align development standards and use allowances with the maximum intensity already allowed under state law, following a comprehensive review.
Zoning changes will include heights and lot coverages among other development standards. State law requires that properties be allowed to achieve their maximum intensity using either General Plan or Zoning Ordinance standards. The City follows this law currently by waiving standards that preclude maximum densities; however, this creates uncertainty for developers and community members, and code amendments would remedy that uncertainty.
Timeframe: Review development standards by January 2026 and adopt appropriate code changes by January 2027.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3
1.3h. Place residential projects (and mixed-use projects with residential components) that conform to all objective standards on the consent agenda for any applicable public hearing, including if they deviate from standards through allowable density bonus waivers or concessions/incentives, so long as no special circumstances exist that necessitate staff and decision-maker discussion of the project.
22.43 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-10
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Timeframe: Immediately following adoption of the Housing Element, place fullyconforming residential and mixed-use with residential projects on the consent agenda for applicable public hearings, except in rare cases where special circumstances exist.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3
1.3i. As part of the HCD Annual Progress Report, the City will monitor the progress of pending projects in the entitlement process, and if projects are not sufficiently progressing toward building permits or if the City is not meeting the pro-rated share of the RHNA at all income levels, including ADU production and affordability, as of midway through the Housing Element Cycle, the City will evaluate its sites inventory and capacity to maintain adequate sites throughout the planning period and, if necessary, identify strategies to streamline and/or assist projects through entitlement, adopt amendments to the ADU development regulations, or implement other strategies, such as general plan and zoning changes to allow for greater residential densities.
Timeframe: Annually as part of the HCD Annual Progress Report.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department and Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3
Policy 1.4
Facilitate alternative housing types that respond to Santa Cruz’s diverse population and housing needs, especially those for single-person households, low-income households, students, and special housing needs groups.
Santa Cruz faces the challenge of meeting the housing needs of residents, particularly given the needs of single-person households, low-income households, students, and special housing needs groups. With diminishing vacant land and a diversity of housing needs, alternative housing types will need to be built in a creative manner. New alternative housing types are being constructed within the City and opportunities for such development should be encouraged.
Objectives:
1.4a.Create and/or revise development standards for co-housing, housing cooperatives, live/work and other alternative housing types.
Timeframe: Review best practices, meet with the development community, and conduct community outreach to develop potential amendments to development standards for alternative housing types and present City Council with any recommended amendments by December 2029.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
22.44 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-11
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.4, 1.7, 2.2, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2, 4; Citywide, while providing for new allowances in lower resource areas (Beach Flats and Lower Ocean) and high resource areas; at least 1 project per year.
1.4b. Meet with the development community to discuss potential barriers to the development of alternative types of housing and use that information to adopt policy or code changes that facilitate the production of alternative housing types.
Timeframe: Meet annually with the development community and subsequently adopt code amendments approximately once every 18 months.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.4, 6.2
1.4c. Communicate with HCD and State representatives to encourage the State to recognize nontraditional types of housing units for RHNA purposes.
Timeframe: Initiate conversations with HCD And State representatives by March 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.4, 3.5
Policy 1.5
Facilitate the development of Accessory Dwelling Units.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can be an important source of affordable housing, provide a source of revenue to fixed-income households, and facilitate multi-generational living. The City has historically had and still maintains ADU standards that are more lenient than what State law mandates, and some recent State law changes have been influenced by standards that Santa Cruz put in place. Due to recent updates in State law and continued interest from the community, the City will continue to update development standards and zoning requirements to further facilitate ADU development.
Objectives:
1.5a. Maintain an inventory of ADU applications, location, affordability, etc. to ensure adequate ADU development is occurring to meet the 6th cycle RHNA. Annually review ADU development progress as part of the HCD Annual Progress Report and if necessary, adopt amendments to the ADU development regulations within 18 months of the annual review to further facilitate ADU production.
22.45 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-12
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Timeframe: Review ADU development progress annually, and if ADU production isless than projected, adopt ADU regulation amendments within 18 months of the annual review.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, with a focus on high opportunity areas/single family neighborhoods; at least 73 ADUs per year with 292 affordable to lower income households throughout the planning period.
1.5b. Continue to implement the City’s ADU program and communicate with ADU applicants to identify ways to modify the program in a manner that facilitates the production of ADUs, including continuation of the allowance for conversion of non-habitable space in multi-family projects to ADUs to be constructed simultaneously with new development projects. Continue public awareness campaigns regarding the construction of ADUs and available incentives through diverse forms of media and outreach distribution.
Timeframe: Communicate with ADU development applicants as needed to determine if modifications to the ADU regulations should be considered.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, including (for ADUs in multi-family projects) along transit corridors with nearby access to goods and services; Maintain information on the City’s website and communicate opportunities to developers on a project-by-project basis – with the goal of permitting at least 73 ADUs per year.
1.5c. Provide streamlined processing and reduced plan check costs for ADU building plans that have been approved at another site within the City, while recognizing that various items, such as setbacks, utility connections, soil conditions, archeological resources, and other issues, will require applicants to submit site-specific information that will require the City’s review and associated fees.
Timeframe: Institute ADU pre-approval program by January 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.5, 2.2. 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide; at least 73 ADUs per year.
22.46 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-13
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1.5e. Present to Council amendments to the City’s ADU regulations regarding owner occupancy to provide greater flexibility to existing and future ADU developments.
Timeframe: Review best practices, conduct community outreach, and prepare amendment to the ADU owner occupancy regulations for Council to consider by May 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.5, 2.2. 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, particularly in predominantly single-family neighborhoods, including high-opportunity areas; Provide for the development of 100 ADUs due to greater flexibility and outreach conducted.
1.5f. Annually survey ADU owners to receive information on types of rental and affordability levels to help ensure accurate Annual Progress Report accounting.
Timeframe: Survey ADU owners annually prior to the Annual Progress Report submittal deadline.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.5, 1.7
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide; 292 total ADUs affordable to lower income and 234 ADUs affordable to moderate incomes by the end of the planning period.
1.5g. Update resources that facilitate legalization of unpermitted ADUs if they meet applicable building standards.
Timeframe: Continue existing legalization program and update online materials for individuals in the legalization process by April 2025 and yearly thereafter.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.5, 6.1
AFFH: 1, 2, 3, 4; Citywide; Legalize 20 ADUs per year and engage 40 property owners with unpermitted ADUs per year.
1.5h. Continue to waive City permitting fees for low-income ADUs units that are deed-restricted for 55 years.
Timeframe: Continue existing low-income ADU fee waiver program.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2
22.47 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-14
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, with a focus on high opportunity areas and single-family neighborhoods; at least 5 deed-restricted low-income ADUs in the planning period.
Policy 1.6
Use the City’s Planned Development Permit (PD) process to facilitate non-conforming development while also serving public objectives more fully than development permitted solely under conventional zoning.
The Planned Development Permit (PD) is a quasi-judicial technique to foster development plans that serve public objectives more fully than plans permitted solely under conventional zoning. In such cases, the City will consider modifications to: building setbacks, street standards, lot coverage, lot area, parking and loading, landscaping, open space, uses, and maximum height. The PD permit has been used successfully to facilitate a range of housing projects. To be eligible for a PD permit, however, the project must occupy a lot of at least 20,000 square feet in area and be approved by the City Council. The minimum lot size requirement could, in some cases, constrain the production of nontraditional housing on smaller infill lots. While the Planned Development process has largely been superseded by the use of density bonuses, it may provide development potential for smaller projects or other projects where a density bonus is not requested.
Objectives:
1.6a. Utilize the Planned Development Permit process to facilitate housing development by considering modifications to building setbacks, street standards, lot coverage, lot area, parking and loading, landscaping, open space, uses, and maximum height.
Timeframe: Continue Planned Development Permit Program
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.6, 2.2
1.6b. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow PD Permits on infill lots less than the current standard of 20,000 square feet in area.
Timeframe: By December 2026, amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow PD Permits on infill lots less than the current standard of 20,000 square feet in area.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.6
22.48 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-15
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 1.7
Provide meaningful opportunities for public engagement with development proposals for new housing so the public can provide informed feedback on the proposal.
Meaningful and informed public participation helps ensure that proposals for new housing meet community expectations and are consistent with the City’s General Plan. Santa Cruz offers many venues for residents to learn about proposed projects and provide meaningful input.
An informed community is key to the success of the Housing Element’s goals and policies, as well as for the development of housing that addresses the community’s needs. The City will host community workshops to receive feedback from the community and educational meetings to provide details on City processes, development projects, and available resources and services.
Objectives:
1.7a. Maintain and implement the official Public Outreach Policy for Planning Projects adopted by Council in 2018 and revised in 2019.
Timeframe: Continue to use the adopted Public Outreach Policy for Planning Projects for all Planning projects.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7
1.7b. Maintain a website and access to a public information counter to provide accurate and clear information to the public and development community about policies, projects, and the development review process.
Timeframe: Continue regularly update websites and maintain access to a public information counter.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7
1.7c. Provide educational materialssuch as webpages and brochures that provide information on key planning and housing issues and are updated over time. These include information on changes to planning processes, new legislation becoming effective, and new programs available to customers.
Timeframe: Continue to provide educational materials and update the materials in a timely manner following any changes to planning processes, new legislation, or new programs available.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7
22.49 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-16
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
2. Affordable Housing
Affordable housing allows persons of all economic segments to live in the community, provides housing for the City’s workforce, allows the integration of different family sizes, income levels, and racial/ethnic groups, and furthers larger social goals. The City’s affordable housing policies encourage the production and preservation of affordable housing.
Policy 2.1
Enable mixed-income projects that encourage greater diversity within housing projects.
The City recognizes that mixed-income neighborhoods provide a variety of benefits to the City including a chance for residents to learn from others of different backgrounds and interests. This helps to broaden perspectives and deepen understanding of other people’s values and points of view, leading to more respect and understanding. The primary way the City promotes mixedincome housing development is through its inclusionary ordinance (which currently requires 20% of the base project units at 50% AMI for SRO projects and 80% AMI for all other residential development).
Objectives:
2.1a. Maintain and implement the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance. Review the Inclusionary Ordinance to determine if amendments are needed to ensure that the inclusionary requirements provide the maximum number of affordable units or deeper levels of affordability without being a barrier to housing development, while considering implications for how developers will use density bonus and how the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance interfaces with density bonus proposals.
Analysis will evaluate affordability levels to incentivize deeper levels of affordable housing, such as extremely low income units, or more moderate income units depending on needs.
Timeframe: Review the Inclusionary Ordinance and present amendment options to City Council by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.7, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide; Require every residential project to follow the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance requirement to support achieving the City’s RHNA targets with the goal of providing 250 affordable units during the planning period.
2.1b. Developa program and/orincentives that increase rental and homeownership opportunities for moderate income / workforce housing units.
Timeframe: Review the Inclusionary Ordinance and present workforce housing amendment options to City Council by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
22.50 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-17
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.7, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2, 3; Citywide, with a focus on transit corridors; 1 project per year utilizing the workforce housing amendments.
Policy 2.2
Develop creative ways to facilitate more affordable housing development in the City.
The City recognizes that creative approaches are needed to facilitate additional affordable housing development. The City will utilize lobbyists and affordable housing advocates to promote affordable housing development and will seek to provide regulatory and/or financial incentives to facilitate affordable housing production, particularly in the case of affordable units not otherwise able to secure additional State and federal financial assistance.
Objectives:
2.2a. Study ways of providing affordable housing currently included, but not highly utilized, in the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, such as allowing affordable units to be provided off-site or incentivizing land dedication in favor of units provided as part of a development project.
Timeframe: Review the Inclusionary Ordinance and present amendment options to City Council by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.7, 6.2
2.2b.Update the City’s ordinance related to fee waivers for affordable units to provide more clarity and to streamline the approval process.
Timeframe: Update the City’s ordinance related to fee waivers for affordable units to provide more clarity and to streamline the approval process by January 2026.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department and Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 6.2
2.2c. Explore additional funding mechanisms that can provide one-time, or more importantly, ongoing funding for affordable housing, such as a ballot measure that would fund affordable housing.
Timeframe: Support additional funding for affordable housing, including support for the affordable housing measure currently contemplated for the ballot by November 2024.
22.51 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-18
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Agency: City Council, City Manager’s Office, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 6.2 AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide; Support additional funding for 100 percent affordable housing projects with the goal to fund at least four affordable housing projects in the planning period.
2.2d. Direct City lobbyists to concentrate on state and federal legislation that would help fund affordable housing.
Timeframe: Lobby the state and national governments for affordable housing funding yearly prior to legislative sessions and on an ongoing basis.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 4.2, 6.2
2.2e. Continue to engage with affordable housing advocates during the creation of policy and during the development review process to help achieve successful affordable housing outcomes.
Timeframe: Meet with affordable housing advocates when new housing policy is being developed.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 6.2
2.2f. Utilize the City’s single-room occupancy and Flexible Density Unit regulations to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types, specifically smaller units, that address the needs of low- and extremely low-income households. Facilitate the development of 100 very low-income units through single-room occupancy development.
Timeframe: Maintain and implement the City’s single-room occupancy and Flexible Density Unit regulations (small units with no density requirement) and review the regulations as needed.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, with a focus on transit corridors; 100 very low-income units throughout the planning period.
22.52 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-19
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
2.2g. Adopt an ordinance that allows 100 percent affordable residential development that conforms to applicable objective standards, not including density bonus waivers and concessions/incentives, to be considered a “by-right” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed in residential and mixed-use zones.
Timeframe: Adopt an ordinance that allows 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use by December 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2. 2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 6.2
2.2h. Adopt SB 35 application review processes for eligible projects that meet the requirements established in Government Code Section 65913.41.
Timeframe: Adopt SB 35 application review processes which comply with Government Code Section 65913.41 by December 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.2
2.2i. Create a packet outlining land use and development information that helps to facilitate affordable housing production, particularly low and extremely low income units, on faith-based organization sites, and provide that information, along with staff contact details, to owners and occupants of faith-based sites within the city at least every two years. Assist property owners in the development of housing including assisting with entitlements, outreach and contact with affordable housing developers, supporting funding applications, providing technical assistance, and granting incentives such as waiving fees and reducing development standards.
Timeframe: Create an informational packet and do initial delivery by April 2025 and then update and provide subsequent deliveries every two years thereafter.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 6.2, 6.3 AFFH: 1, 2, 3; Faith-based properties; engage property owners at least every two years with the goal to facilitate at least two affordable housing projects on faith-based properties in the planning period.
22.53 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-20
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 2.3
Support the Density Bonus as a valuable tool for incentivizing the development of housing and the inclusion of affordable units in housing projects.
The Density Bonus Program continues to be a valuable tool, in tandem with the Affordable Housing Ordinance, to allow developers to build additional housing units which help subsidize the inclusion of affordable units in the project. The Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2018 and 2020 to comply with changes in State law; however, additional revisions are needed to fully reflect the state law allowances, except where the City's code further facilitates housing production.
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance currently allows a developer to construct 20 percent more units than allowed under the Zoning Ordinance for projects that dedicate ten percent of units for lower income households, five percent for very low-income households, and/or for qualified senior housing developments with at least 35 units. The Ordinance includes the opportunity for developments of at least five units to utilize up to three incentives.
Government Code Section 65915 authorizes an applicant to receive two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower‐income households, at least 10 percent of the total units for very low‐income households, or at least 20 percent moderate‐ income households. It also allows an applicant to receive up to three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent of the total units for very low‐income households, or at least 30 percent for persons or families of moderate‐income households. Lastly, Government Code Section 65915 also allows projects proposing up to 50 percent additional density provided those projects produce the additional below market rate (BMR) units in the “base” portion of the project – unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35 percent.
Objectives:
2.3a. Amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to fully reflect State Density Bonus Law allowances, except where the City's code further facilitates housing production.
Timeframe: Amend the Density Bonus Ordinance by December 2024.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 6.2
2.3b. Continue implementation of the City and State Density Bonus laws.
Timeframe: Maintain and Implement the City Density Bonus Ordinance and the State Density Bonus and adopt amendments to comply with State law as needed.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 6.2
22.54 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-21
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 2.4
Support Public-Private Partnerships that facilitate the development of affordable housing.
In today’s housing market, creative approaches and partnerships are required to finance and build affordable housing. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, Mercy Housing California, Mid-Peninsula Housing, South County Housing, Habitat for Humanity, For-the-Future Housing, Community Housing Land Trust, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, Inc., and other housing groups and agencies offer expertise in developing and managing affordable housing. In addition, the City has partnered with nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing to build housing. The City has granted regulatory concessions (such as density bonuses), subsidized the replacement of infrastructure, modified development regulations, lowered development and impact fees, and provided direct assistance to such groups. Working with affordable housing developers enables the City to better provide high quality and affordable housing. The City’s Economic Development and Housing Department cultivates public-private partnerships to develop affordable housing.
Objectives:
2.4a. Coordinate with: the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, Mercy Housing California, Mid-Pen Housing, Habitat for Humanity, For-the-Future Housing, Community Housing Land Trust, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, Inc., and other housing groups and agencies offering expertise in developing and managing affordable housing. Use the coordination to identify and implement policies or code changes that better facilitate affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing.
Timeframe: Coordinate at least annually with affordable housing groups and agencies and implement changes in response to feedback.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 4.2 6.2 AFFH: 1, 2, 3, 4; Citywide with a focus on opportunities on candidate housing sites; On average, one 100 percent affordable housing project per year.
2.4b. Partner with nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing to build housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets.
Timeframe: Partner with nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing on an ongoing basis, whenever possible, to build housing. At least annually reach out to developers to identify development opportunities.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 6.2 AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide with a focus on candidate housing sites opportunities; On average, one 100 percent affordable housing project per year.
22.55 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-22
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
2.4c. Acquire properties when possible as part of a public-private partnership to develop affordable housing or convert existing units into deed-restricted affordable units.
Timeframe: Acquire properties for deed-restricted affordable housing on an ongoing basis, when feasible funding and viable development opportunities exist.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2, 3, 4; Citywide, with a focus in and around downtown and other areas where higher density projects are supported, such as transit corridors; 4 projects throughout the planning period.
Policy 2.5
Preserve at-risk affordable housing.
The City’s Affordable Housing Preservation Ordinance governs noticing procedures for the conversion of at-risk affordable units and allows the City and qualified nonprofit housing organizations an opportunity to negotiate to purchase the project or extend the affordability restrictions. In addition, the City plays an active role in financially assisting at-risk projects in return for extended affordability controls on the projects. The City tracks the expiration of affordability agreements and contacting owners of projects with future expirations to explore partnerships that would allow for the extension of the affordability terms. The City typically aims to convert those units to be affordable in perpetuity.
Objectives:
2.5a. Preserve 372 at-risk units by working with interested agencies and community organizations to monitor their status, provide technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordability controls, and review tenant notification prior to project conversion. The City will continue to comply with all noticing requirements. Prior to the expiration of affordability covenants, the City will proactively outreach to tenants and owners to provide education and assistance as appropriate.
Timeframe: Coordinate often (at least annually) with affordable housing groups and agencies to preserve 372 at-risk units.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 2.5, 3.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; At-risk units; preserve 372 at-risk units throughout the planning period.
22.56 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-23
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 2.6
Provide water and sewer service priority to lower-income households.
Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted housing element, jurisdictions are responsible to immediately distribute a copy of the Housing Element to area water and sewer providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and service providers when considering approval of new residential projects. Additionally, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households.
Objectives:
2.6a. Include projected water use for all housing defined in the Housing Element in regularlyscheduled updates to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Establish a policy and implementing procedures to grant priority for service to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households, should its long-term water supply, treatment process, or distribution system capacity issues limit the City’s ability to meet all planned future water service needs. Establish a policy and implementing procedures to grant priority sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households, should long-term wastewater treatment or collection system capacity issues limit the City’s ability to meet all planned future wastewater service needs.
Timeframe: Update the City’s Urban Water Management Plan every five years, as required by state law and regulations, with the next update due in 2026.
Establish a policy and implementing procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households by June 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Water Department, Public Works Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.6, 6.2, 7.1
3. Special Needs and Homelessness
Santa Cruz is home to people with special housing needs that result from income level, family characteristics, disability, or other issues. These groups include, but are not limited to: seniors, families with children, people with disabilities, single-parent families, college students, farm workers, and people who are experiencing homelessness. Santa Cruz is committed to furthering a socially and economically integrated community and therefore is committed to providing a continuum of housing and supportive services to help address the diverse needs of residents.
22.57 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-24
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 3.1
Create housing for low-income families with children and persons with disabilities.
The Santa Cruz population of families with children has been shrinking in recent years and the housing need for this type of household can generally be met through the current development market. However, Santa Cruz recognizes the importance of a living environment conducive to lowincome families with children and is committed to the development of affordable and accessible family housing in the City, including projects that contain childcare facilities. In past years, the City has entered into development agreements for the Pacific Station South (59 VLI and 10 LI units), Pacific Station North (27 ELI and 28 LI), and the library mixed-use project, with includes 124 units of housing affordable to low- and very low-income households and includes a childcare facility.
Additionally, the City provided financial assistance to the Water Street Apartments, a 41-unit, 100 percent affordable project with 8 units reserved for disabled persons with a preference for individuals who would benefit from developmental disability support services. The City will continue working with affordable housing developers and nonprofit organizations to provide for the needs of low-income families.
Objectives:
3.1a. Include childcare opportunities in conjunction with affordable housing development when possible. Assist in the development of at least 100 affordable units with access to childcare facilities throughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Include childcare opportunities in conjunction with affordable housing development, when possible, on an ongoing basis.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.1, 3.2
3.1b. Work with other agencies, community groups, and non-profits to develop housing for persons with disabilities and to publicize housing accessible to persons with disabilities. Assist in the development of at least 50 units for persons with disabilitiesthroughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Work with housing partners on an ongoing basis to publicize and assist with housing accessible to persons with disabilities for at least 50 persons.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 3.1, 3.4
AFFH: 1, 3; Citywide, with a focus on areas with higher percentages of disabilities (see Figure D-9); 50 units for persons with disabilities throughout the planning period.
22.58 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-25
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3.1c. Update Zoning Ordinance reasonable accommodation codes, establish reasonable accommodations procedures, and make information on resources readily available on the City’s website. The Fair Housing Act requires jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodations with regard to rules, policies, practices, and procedures where such accommodations may be necessary to make housing accessible for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations provide a basis for residents with disabilities to request flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waived of certain regulations or requirements to ensure equal access to housing opportunities.
Timeframe: Adopt reasonable accommodations procedures by January 2025 and make information on the process and resources available for persons with disabilities within 6 months of adoption of the procedures.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.1
3.1d. Update Zoning Ordinance requirements related to community care licensing facilities of seven or more people to allow these uses in all residential zones, if necessary, and modify the permitting process to permit the uses with objectivity to facilitate approval certainty similar to other uses of the same type in the same zone.
Timeframe: Adopt community care licensing updates by January 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.2, 3.1
Policy 3.2
Provide high quality care alternatives such as childcare centers and family daycare for children and youth that are available, affordable, and accessible to those persons who live or work in the City.
Santa Cruz recognizes that our children represent the future. In today’s market, the high cost of rental and ownership housing typically requires that all adult family members work. The availability of affordable care for children and youth is necessary to provide an environment conducive to healthy and safe development and to enable families to continue to live in Santa Cruz. The City is committed to making high quality care alternatives for children and youth available, affordable, and accessible to those persons who live or work in the City, including childcare centers and family daycare homes. The City recently implemented a childcare impact fee on development project to help fund childcare opportunities throughout the City. The City is also committed to planning affirmatively for childcare through land use, zoning, and permitting procedures. Recent Zoning Ordinance updates brought the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with State law by including family daycare homes as an allowed use in any district that allows residential uses.
22.59 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-26
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Objectives:
3.2a. Continue to assist nonprofit and for-profit organizations that provide services to children, youth, and families with children.
Timeframe: Assist nonprofit and for-profit organizations that provide services to children, youth, and families with children on an ongoing basis.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.2, 5.4
3.2b. Support childcare centers and facilities in new residential developments and employment centers, and use the funding collected through the City’s Childcare Impact Fee to facilitate provision of new, expanded, or improved childcare facilities in the City.
Timeframe: Use the funding collected through the City’s Childcare Impact Fee to facilitate provision of childcare facilities in the City.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 3.1, 3.2
Policy 3.3
Implement the City’s Homelessness Response Action Plan and maintain the relationship with the Continuum of Care to support housing solutions for the homeless as well as a wide variety of supportive services.
Santa Cruz has the County’s largest number of persons experiencing homeless. More homeless services are provided in the City than anywhere else in the County. The City received State Homelessness Response funding in 2021 and approved a three-year Homelessness Response Action Plan in March 2022 to prioritize and coordinate comprehensive actions that respond to homelessness. As a member of the Continuum of Care (CoC, called the Housing for Health Partnership), the City also coordinates with governmental, non-profit, and private sector partners to distribute local, state, and federal funding to assist people experiencing homelessness. The City plays an instrumental role in the CoC by supporting the continued operation of homeless services, funding the majority of the Continuum’s operations, and applying for grants on behalf of nonprofits.
In addition to offering shelter and services to the homeless, the City is committed to preventing homelessness by assisting at-risk populations, such as those with extremely low incomes, through emergency assistance and the development of stable, affordable housing. Santa Cruz also has a significant number of transitional and permanent supportive housing units for people with disabilities, psychiatric illness, HIV/AIDS, and substance problems; more transitional and supportive units are currently in the pipeline. The City also contracts with nonprofit organizations providing employment training, childcare, rental assistance, and other supportive services.
22.60 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-27
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Objectives:
3.3a. Actively seek funding to implement the three-year Homelessness Response Action Plan approved in 2022 and update the plan periodically to respond to changing needs.
Timeframe: Annually apply for grants or pursue legislative funding opportunities to implement the three-year Homelessness Response Action Plan by December 2025 and update the plan on an ongoing basis to respond to changing needs.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.2, 6.2, 6.3 AFFH: 1, 3; Citywide, specifically to existing organizations and areas of focus identified in the Homelessness Response Action Plan; When the City receives funding for such purposes, operate, or provide funding for the operation of, at least one shelter facility that serves at least 25 people at a time.
3.3b. Meet monthly with the County homelessness response representatives, Continuum of Care, and/or homeless service providers. Use the Homelessness Response Action Plan update to guide and increase homelessness response capacity through integrating citywide services, creating and maintaining a full-time team dedicated to homelessness response, and coordinating with external partners to work collectively on homelessness response solutions for the City, and coordinate with the County and Continuum of Care on updates to their respective homelessness response planning documents.
Timeframe: Meet monthly with the County homelessness response representatives, Continuum of Care, and/or homeless service providers in relation to implementing respective homelessness response action plans.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.4, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 6.2
AFFH: 3; Citywide, with a service focus on areas with concentrations of homeless or those at risk of homelessness, such as Coral Street, open spaces, and downtown; Meet monthly with key homeless service providers with the goal of partnering to facilitate the continuation, expansion, or establishment of at least two service programs or development projects per year that serve homeless.
22.61 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-28
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3.3.c. Collect and share public data, systems, and metrics with the County and community-based organizations.
Timeframe: Regularly coordinate with the County and community-based organization to help ensure the most relevant public data, systems, and metrics are being used in policy decisions.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, City Manager’s Office Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 3.6
AFFH: 1, 3; Citywide, with services and data collection focused in areas with higher concentrations of homeless, such as downtown, Coral Street, and open spaces; Utilize shared databases, such as the Homeless Management Information System, for case management, and collect and share public data at least annually.
3.3d. Develop annual targeted state and federal legislative asks related to homelessness response efforts and be a leader in the effort to build a statewide coalition of municipalities advocating for legislative changes and funding to support reducing homelessness.
Timeframe: Annually develop targeted state and federal legislative asks related to homelessness response efforts and continue ongoing efforts to build a statewide advocacy coalition to support reducing homelessness.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.2, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 3; Citywide, with a focus in areas with higher concentrations of homeless, such as downtown, Coral Street, and open spaces; Fund at least two service program or development projects that support the City’s homelessness response efforts through targeted state and federal legislative asks.
3.3e. Develop new supportive housing and homelessness services at the Coral Street campus and by seeking partnerships and funding to effectuate the Council-adopted vision for the area.
Timeframe: Apply for at least one grant in the next two years and actively seek partnerships and funding to provide new supportive housing and homelessness services within the Coral Street Vision Report area.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.2, 6.2 AFFH: 1, 3; Coral Street Vision Report area; Facilitate at least one new supportive housing and/or homelessness servicesprojectwithin the Coral Street Vision area by December 2026.
22.62 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-29
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3.3f. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the requirements of AB 139 and AB 2339. Code amendments will revise parking requirements and the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions; amend a zone to permit emergency shelters without discretionary action in a zone(s) that allows residential uses; ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters, including proximity to transportation and services; and modify development standards if appropriate to comply with statutory requirements.
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with AB 139 and AB 2339 within one year of adoption. The City will review emergency shelter requirements every three years, beginning in 2026, and if appropriate, will adopt relevant amendments in response to changes in State law within one year of review.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 3.4
AFFH: 1, 2, 3; Citywide with a focus on AB 2339 eligible sitesand zones that permit emergency shelters; Review State Law every year for Zoning Ordinance updates and adopt amendments within one year of review.
3.3g. Continue to fund and partner with the County’s Continuum of Care to provide shelter services, and continue to encourage other jurisdictions’ similar funding, participation, and partnership with the County’s Continuum of Care and shelter service provision.
Timeframe: Provide funding to and partner with the County’s Continuum of Care to provide shelter services and continue to encourage involvement fromother jurisdictions.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 3.4, 3.6
AFFH: 1, 2, 3; Citywide; Provide funding and partner with the County’s Continuum of Care to encourage involvement from other jurisdictions, with the goals of the City contributing at least $215,000 annually to help support a share of at least 7,000 overnight stays across the county during each year (~19 beds per night, if each of those beds were available for 365 days per year), recognizing that the City is only fully in control of its own contribution and that the Continuum of Care oversees establishment of these particular shelter beds.
3.3h. Work with partner agencies and advocate for expanded homelessness response services within the County and outside the City’s jurisdiction.
Timeframe: Advocate for expanded homelessness responses services within the County and outside the City’s jurisdiction.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
22.63 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-30
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 3.4, 3.6
AFFH: 1, 2, 3; Citywide; Meet with the County and service providers at least monthly to coordinate on the expansion of homelessness response efforts across Santa Cruz County, including within the City of Santa Cruz per the City’s Homelessness Response Plan. Partner on at least one homelessness response funding request per year with the goal of expanding funding for at least two service programs and at least one development project during the planning period.
3.3i. Provide resources to help connect the homeless population with supportive services, and actively promote said resources through City Outreach staff who interact with people experiencing homelessness.
Timeframe: Utilize the City’s Homelessness Response and City Outreach staff to help provide resources to the people experiencing homelessness.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 3.6
AFFH: 1, 3; Citywide, with a focus on areas of concentrated homelessness such as the downtown region, parks, open spaces, and along Highways 1 and 9; Engage an average of at least 20 people experiencing homelessness per work day.
3.3j. Minimize environmental degradation caused by unsanctioned camps.
Timeframe: Initiate environmental mitigation efforts within the three-year Homelessness Response Action Plan timeframe to help reverse degradation caused by unsanctioned camps and partner with community groups to help restore sensitive habitats affected by unsanctioned camps.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3
3.3k. Apply for grant funding to create a waste disposal program for recreational vehicle owners.
Timeframe: Apply for waste disposal grant funding by June 2025.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3, 4.2
22.64 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-31
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3.3l. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish a ministerial approval process and regulations which approve low-barrier navigation centers by-right that meet State requirements.
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish a ministerial approval process and regulations which approve low-barrier navigation centers that meet State requirements by-right by June 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.3
Policy 3.4
Facilitate permanent supportive housing units, transitional housing options, and extremely low income units for residents through funding and partnerships.
Santa Cruz has a large population requiring supportive living services to preserve and maintain equal housing opportunities and choice. This includes people with disabilities, formerly homeless people, persons recovering from substance abuse, persons living with chronic disabling conditions such as HIV/AIDS, and other special needs groups. "Supportive Living Housing Services" is a broad term that encompasses a range of community services and types of assistance. The concept goes beyond the traditional single-service delivery "supportive services" and seeks to enable individual special needs recipients to achieve a significantly greater quality of life and independence and to adapt as individual needs change over time. The City recognizes that permanent supportive housing can broadly service a variety of special needs groups. Whatever the level of service or setting required, the City remains committed to continue providing permanent supportive housing options for residents as funds are available.
Objectives:
3.4a. Continue supporting organizations in maintaining permanent supportive housing and providing assistance to special needs groups. Assist a minimum of 150 special needs households including but not limited to persons experiencing homelessness in finding housing and supportive services throughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Continue support for maintaining permanent supportive housing and providing assistance to special needs groups.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans Relevant Policies: 3.1, 3.4, 3.6, 4.2, 5.4
3.4b. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect State law requirements for transitional and supportive housing, and permit transitional and supportive housing in all zones allowing residential uses, as residential uses, similar to other residential uses of the same types in the same zone.
Timeframe: Amending the Zoning Ordinance to reflect State law by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
22.65 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-32
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 3.1, 3.4, 6.2, 7.3
3.4c. Continue to facilitate 100 percent affordable supportive housing projects that comply with Government Code Section 65651 (AB 2162) and permit this use without discretionary review, and on a project-by-project basis, go beyond state law and establish qualifying projects above 50 units as by-right development.
Timeframe: Support the use of AB 2162 incentives for qualifying projects on an ongoing basis and ask for Council direction to go beyond State law on a project by project basis.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 6.2
Policy 3.5
Facilitate new student housing as well as housing for university faculty and staff.
Over the next 20 years, the University has committed to constructing additional housing pursuant to its Long-Range Development Plan (2021 LRDP) to provide housing for 100 percent of projected student growth of approximately 8,500 students for a total of 28,000 students by 2040. In addition, USCS has committed to provide new housing for approximately 25 percent of new faculty and staff, approximately 558 additional new housing units.
The City supports UCSC’s goal to provide housing opportunities commensurate with goals set forth in the LRDP. The City Council and Chancellor and City and University staff meet to collaborate on facilitating new student, faculty, and staff housing. Housing currently in process includes a new housing project, Student Housing West, with space for approximately 2,900 undergraduate and graduate students as well as 140 units for student families. An addition to Kresge College will also add 400 new student beds. These housing units are included in the prior LRDP (2005-2020) and are not included in the totals planned in the 2021 LRDP.
Objectives:
3.5a. Collaborate with UCSC on ways to increase the supply of student, faculty and staff housing on the University campus. Facilitate the development of 305 on-campus units, as detailed in Appendix G, throughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Collaborate with UCSC on ways to increase the supply of student, faculty and staff housing on the University campus and facilitate the development of 305 on-campus units
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 1.4, 2.4, 3.5, 7.3
22.66 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-33
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3.5b. Support state legislation that would advance the housing goals of the community such as facilitating construction of new student housing and increasing funding for housing on the UCSC campus.
Timeframe: Support State legislation that would facilitate on-campus housing at UCSC on an ongoing basis.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.4, 3.5, 3.7
Policy 3.6
Provide community programming funding to support the special needs and homeless populations in finding housing and supportive services.
In recent years, the City has provided approximately $1 million each year to a variety of nonprofit human service and housing development organizations supporting numerous programs that assist homeless persons, very low- and low-income households, families with children, women, and others in finding housing and supportive services.
Objectives:
3.6a. Support City-led efforts or non-profit human service and housing development organizations to assist the homeless, very low- and low-income households, families with children, single-parent households, persons with disabilities, and others in finding housing and supportive services, including through directing funding such as HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to those causes. Assist a minimum of 150 special needs households, including but not limited to persons experiencing homelessness, in finding housing and supportive services throughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Assist a minimum of 150 special needs households throughout the planning period.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans, General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.4, 3.1 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.2, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, Policy 3.7
Support agriculture and employee housing where applicable.
The California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 and 17021.6 requires agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds.
22.67 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-34
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Recent legislation has also created new avenues for school districts to create housing for their employees and the City of Santa Cruz supports those efforts.
Objectives:
3.7a. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 that require agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds.
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect Government Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 3.7
3.7b. Support and facilitate the efforts of the Santa Cruz City School District to provide workforce housing for its employees and update local codes to match or exceed allowances found in state law. Authorize development of 50 workforce housing units throughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Provide ongoing support for the Santa Cruz City School District to provide workforce housing and facilitate those efforts through updates to local codes as needed.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 3.7
AFFH: 1, 2, 4; Citywide, with specific engagement towards opportunities on school-owned sites; 50 workforce housing units throughout the planning period.
3.7c. Communicate annually with employers who provide seasonal housing, such as University of California Santa Cruz, to encourage them to connect with those in need of short-term housing, such as farmworkers.
Timeframe: Annually communicate with employers who provide short term housing, encouraging them to offer their housing during the off-season to others who have seasonal housing needs, such as farmworkers.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.4, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7
22.68 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-35
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
AFFH: 1, 4; Citywide, with specific engagement towards employers who provide seasonal housing; 50 workforce housing units throughout the planning period.
4. Housing Assistance
Rapid increases in rents in recent years have placed a disproportionate burden on and, in some cases, have displaced lower income residents. Due to rising housing prices, moderate income households (e.g., health care workers, public safety workers, teachers, and others) may leave Santa Cruz to seek affordable housing in neighboring cities. Providing housing assistance, where feasible, helps maintain an economically and socially balanced community.
Policy 4.1
Support the provision of rental assistance in the event of a household having insufficient funds for a security deposit or rent payment.
In recent years, rising rental costs mean that some households may have insufficient income for a security deposit and cannot secure an apartment. The City contracts with the County Housing Authority to assist low-to-moderate income households with the security deposit and last month’s rent. The security deposit is provided in the form of a grant to the tenant. With agreement of the landlord, the Housing Authority guarantees the last month’s rent as a Letter of Credit and the tenant pays 1/12 the amount each month over one year. The Housing Authority pays the shortfall if the tenant defaults. The City also funds, through Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc., an emergency rental assistance program to prevent the eviction of tenants or homeowners for a short transition period to allow tenants to stabilize their finances.
Objectives:
4.1a. Continue to contract with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz or other partners to provide culturally responsive outreach and assist low- to moderate-income households with the security deposit and last month’s rent and continue to fund a third-party, emergency rental assistance program to prevent eviction for a short transition period. Assist a minimum of 100 low- and moderate-income households throughout the planning period. Communicate with the Housing Authority, third-party rental assistance administrators, and other community partners to determine potential barriers to accessing this assistance and determine options and implement improvements to the process.
Timeframe: Continue to contract with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz or other partnerson an ongoing basisto assist at least 100 low-to-moderate income households in the Housing Element cycle. Meet with community partners by January 2025 to determine options for improvements and establish a schedule for implementing improvements.
Agency: City Manager’s Office, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans
22.69 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-36
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Relevant Policies: 2.5, 5.4, 6.1
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with focused engagement towards neighborhoods with more concentrated low- and moderate-income households (Beach Flats and Lower Ocean); Assist at least 100 low- and moderate-income households throughout the planning period.
Policy 4.2
Investigate and apply for various state, federal, and private sources to provide financing for the construction of new housing and the provision of supportive services.
Various State, federal, and private sources provide financing for the construction of new housing and provision of supportive services. CalHome Grants and other State and federal sources fund affordable ownership and rental housing, neighborhood revitalization efforts, special needs housing and supportive services, downtown revitalization, and a variety of other programs that address housing needs of communities across the state. Many of these programs benefit Santa Cruz residents and nonprofit organizations.
Objectives:
4.2a. Apply for CalHome grants and other state and federal sources each time the City deems the application is competitive and the funding can be adequately leveraged in an effort to expand homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income buyers through homebuyer assistance.
Timeframe: Apply for CalHome grants and other State and Federal funding sources each time the City deems the application is competitive and the funding can be adequately leveraged for homebuyer assistance.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 4.2, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 1, 4; Citywide, with attention to areas of high opportunity; Apply for grant funding when feasible, with the goal to apply for at least two grants to fund at least two projects throughout the planning period.
4.2b. Support the continuation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to promote the development and preservation of affordable housing, particularly extremely low income units, and to utilize as leverage for other sources of funding.
Timeframe: On an annual basis, allocate Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding to continue to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to promote the development and preservation of affordable housing.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans, General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 6.1, 6.2
22.70 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-37
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
AFFH: 1, 2, 3, 4; Citywide, with particular focus on areas of high opportunity and transit corridors; Promote the development of 100 extremely low-income units and preservation of 372 at-risk units.
5. Neighborhood Vitality
Quality of life is shaped, in part, by neighborhood conditions in Santa Cruz. As an older, established community, Santa Cruz requires a concerted effort to encourage the maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing and to promote sustainable, livable neighborhoods. In neighborhoods, a continued focus is needed on upgrading infrastructure, improving community facilities, and providing public services. City community development policies seek to balance the need for accommodating new housing, respecting neighborhood character, enhancing infrastructure and public services, and promoting vital residential neighborhoods all the while protecting existing households from displacement.
Policy 5.1
Provide Code Enforcement services to ensure that the character and quality of neighborhoods and housing is maintained.
Code enforcement is important to ensuring that the character and quality of neighborhoods and housing is maintained. The City’s Code Compliance Division inspects properties for compliance with State and local regulations governing building and property maintenance. If deficiencies are found, the property owner has a specified period of time to voluntarily correct the problem.
Should corrections not occur, the City can issue citations or initiate legal action. In situations where violations threaten the safety of tenants, property owners must provide up to four months of relocation assistance. However, the City seeks voluntary compliance through educating property owners and may refer property owners to programs for available financial and technical assistance.
Objectives:
5.1a. Continue to implement the City’s code enforcement programas a key method of maintaining the quality of neighborhoods and housing.
Timeframe: Continue to implement the City’s code enforcement program Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 5.1, 5.2, 5.4
AFFH: 3; Citywide, with particular attention to the City’s lower income areas (Beach Flats and Lower Ocean); Identify and assist 80 units in need of rehabilitation.
22.71 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-38
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
5.1b. Continue to proactively offer special code compliance assistance like free community cleanup and refuse disposal days in lower income areas such as Beach Flats and Lower Ocean and work with community groups in those areas to increase awareness of neighbors in those areas.
Timeframe: Provide refuse disposal days in lower income areas at least once a year.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 5.1, 5.2, 5.4
AFFH: 3; Beach Flats and Lower Ocean neighborhoods; Provide at least one neighborhood clean-up and refuse disposal day per year in the Beach Flats and in Lower Ocean, and aim to assist at least 20 households per event per year.
Policy 5.2
Provide a rental housing inspection program that improves the quality of housing, neighborhood conditions, and health of residents.
Given the age of housing in Santa Cruz, some older homes may experience deferred maintenance or have substandard electrical, plumbing, or other systems. Many of these conditions may not be evident to residents or property owners. In order to improve the quality of housing, neighborhood conditions, and health of residents, the City benefits from a rental housing inspection program.
The Rental Inspection Program requires rental properties to undergo periodic inspections to ensure the prevention and correction of basic housing code violations.
Objectives:
5.2a. Continue to administer the City’s rental inspection program to ensure maintenance of a healthy and safe rental housing stock throughout the City. Assist a minimum of 100 units in need of rehabilitation.
Timeframe: Continue to administer the City’s rental inspection program.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 5.1, 5.2, 5.4
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with particular attention to ensuring that residents in lower income areas (Beach Flats and Lower Ocean) have safe and healthy homes; Assist 100 units in need of rehabilitation.
5.2b. Develop an expanded outreach program on the City’s rental inspection program and other Code Enforcement initiatives by working with other City departments, community groups, or nonprofit organizations to reach people in need of help who are unaware of the program or its benefits.
Timeframe: Expand the City’s rental inspection program outreach by March 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
22.72 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-39
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 5.1, 5.2,
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide with particular focus on harder-to-reach communities (e.g., Spanish-speaking), lower income areas (e.g., Beach Flats and Lower Ocean), and properties identified as needing some rehabilitation; Assist 100 households as a result of the outreach efforts, e.g., through units being added to the Rental Inspection Service.
Policy 5.3
Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to low-income households when feasible.
The City of Santa Cruz recently partnered with the City of Watsonville and received a shared grant for rehabilitation and electric conversion work on 25 low-income homes in each city. The Unified Housing Rehabilitation Program (UHRP) also provides Federally funded loans to low-income homeowners or rental property owners with low-income tenants to upgrade housing or eliminate substandard or unsafe housing conditions. Eligible work includes repairs to electrical and plumbing systems, seismic upgrades to foundations, painting, replacement of roofing, energy conservation devices, and modifications to improve accessibility for people with disabilities. Depending on the funding sources, the loan terms require the unit to remain affordable to low-income households for up to 15 years after rehabilitation.
Objectives:
5.3a. Assist a minimum of 100 units during the planning period through local,state, and federal partnerships to fund or extend loans to low-income homeowners or rental property owners with low-income tenants to upgrade housing or eliminate substandard or unsafe housing conditions.
Timeframe: Assist a minimum of 100 units during the planning period through local, state, and federal partnerships to fund or extend loans housing upgrades.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans Relevant Policies: 4.2, 5.3
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with a focus on areas of greater occurrence of lower incomes (particularly downtown, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean); Assist a minimum of 100 low-income households during the planning period.
5.3b. Seek out housing rehabilitation program funding that would particularly increase energy efficiency within a project or assist low-income seniors to age in place.
Timeframe: Follow the Climate Action Plan 2030 Decarbonization Roadmap that seeks to provide funding for low-income and senior housing assistance for energy efficiency and building electrification.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department, City Manager’s Office
22.73 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-40
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans, General Fund
Relevant Policies: 4.2, 5.3
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with a focus on areas of greater occurrence of lower incomes (particularly downtown, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean); Apply for at least one applicable grant during the planning period, and aim to assist 50 households throughout the planning period.
Policy 5.4
Provide additional support to historically underserved areas, such as Beach Flats and Lower Ocean.
Certain areas of Santa Cruz, such as Beach Flats and Lower Ocean, are home to large a proportion of the City’s low- to moderate-income and minority households and experience low homeownership and higher prevalence of overcrowding and substandard living conditions. The City will continue to seek ways to better support these areas.
Objectives:
5.4a. Provide targeted and culturally responsive outreach to the South of Laurel, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean neighborhoods for policy initiatives and projects that may affect those areas and work with community members to promote increased participation.
Timeframe: Provided targeted outreach to the South of Laurel, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean Neighborhoods whenever policy initiatives and projects may affect those areas.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 5.4, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; South of Laurel, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean neighborhoods; Engage communities upon each policy initiative and project that may affect those areas – aim to engage at least 30 individuals per initiative/project.
5.4b. Annually host a neighborhood meeting to gather input and feedback from historically underserved communities and relevant organizations and agencies regarding resident’s needs.
Timeframe: Annually host a neighborhood meeting to gather feedback on resident needs.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department, City Manager’s Office Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 5.4, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; South of Laurel, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean neighborhoods; Annually host at least one neighborhood meeting and aim to engage at least 50 households annually.
22.74 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-41
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
5.4c. Continue to utilize the HUD Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) designation to target support for the NRSA services such as tutoring, food pantry, translation services, referral services, rent assistance, and more to the community in historically underserved areas.
Timeframe: Continue to support NRSA services in historically underserved areas.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 5.4
AFFH: 3, 4; HUD NRSA neighborhoods; Assist a minimum of 100 households in the planning period.
Policy 5.5
Protect susceptible populations while improving infrastructure, resources, and access to affordable units.
Displacement may occur for a variety of reasons, including rising housing costs and gentrification (a result of changing urban areas attracting wealthier households and displacing existing, lower income households). The City has identified one census tract (downtown neighborhoods) currently experiencing displacement of very-low-income households and another census tract with a population at risk of displacement (the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean neighborhoods). In comparison to the City as a whole, both tracts report higher rates of renter households, Latinx population, households with limited English-speaking ability, and lower household incomes.
Therefore, residents of these two areas are considered more at-risk of displacement.
To preserve existing neighborhoods and protect susceptible populations while improving infrastructure, resources, and access to affordable units, the City is implementing antidisplacement strategies such as relocation assistance if a large rent increase creates the need for tenants to move, relocation assistance if tenants must move due to unsafe conditions, funding for emergency rental assistance, and codes protecting tenants from landlord retaliation. These programs or similar ones should be maintained, and potential ways to expand tenant protections should be explored.
Objectives:
5.5a. Maintain and continue to implement the City’s affordable housing preservation strategies, such as negotiating agreements to extend the length of affordable housing deed restrictions that are set to expire.
Timeframe: Continue to implement the City’s existing affordable housing preservation strategies.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.5, 5.5, 6.1
22.75 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-42
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
5.5b. Adopt anti-displacement policies, programs, or code amendments, such as additional antiretaliation policies and programs or a revised first right of refusal to tenants displaced due to development, after evaluating the effectiveness of existing anti-displacement strategies and tools and engaging with the community to develop a list of best practices and recommendations.
Timeframe: Implement new anti-displacement measures by September 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with a particular focus on low income tenants and in lowerincome areas of the City (Beach Flats and Lower Ocean); Assist a minimum of 100 households during the planning period.
5.5c. Establish a program that promotes the rental protections that are in effect, including bilingual tenant legal services, and utilize a variety of means to distribute that information widely with a focus on getting that information disseminated in lower-income areas.
Timeframe: Establish a program to disseminate rental protection information, especially to lower-income areas, by June 2024, and they continue this program on an ongoing basis thereafter.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 4; Citywide, with a focus on areas of greater occurrence of lower incomes (particularly downtown, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean); Engage at least 25 households in identified areas annually.
6. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunities based on protected classes, as defined by State law. The City shall seek to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.
Policy 6.1
Seek to mitigate displacement risks and remove barriers to housing choice vouchers.
The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County administers the Housing Choice Voucher (previously known a Section 8 vouchers) rental assistance program for Santa Cruz. This program extends rental subsidies to very low-income households and offers the tenant a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent (FMR) established by the Housing Authority and 30 percent of the tenant’s income. A tenant may choose housing that costs more than the FMR and pay the
22.76 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-43
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
extra rent above the standard. In recent years, the volatility of the local rental market, as related to the FMR, has presented challenges in ensuring that the voucher program remains attractive to landlords.
Objectives:
6.1a. Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz and property owners with the goal to continue funding that provides incentives to rent to vouchers holders. Provide funding for at least one incentive program per year.
Timeframe: Coordinate annually with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz to continue funding incentives to landlords for voucher rentals.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans Relevant Policies: 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 1, 3, 4; Citywide with focus on current and potential future voucher rental properties; Fund at least one incentive program per year.
6.1b. Coordinate with the County Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz annually to identify and provide support for pursuing funding opportunities for voucher holder and lowincome tenant assistance programs, including, but not limited to, assistance with security deposits and moving expenses. Assist a minimum of 100 households throughout the planning period.
Timeframe: Coordinate with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz annually to support the identification of funding opportunities for voucher holders and low-income tenant assistance programs to assist a minimum of 100 households throughout the planning period.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 6.1, 6.2, 6.4
AFFH: 1, 4; Citywide, with a focus on areas of greater occurrence of lower incomes (particularly downtown, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean); Assist a minimum of 100 households throughout the planning period.
6.1c. Provide support to the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz during their application process for the HUD “Moving to Work” designation that will expand opportunities for financial assistance and vouchers.
Timeframe: Provide support to the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz during their application process for their HUD “Moving to Work” designation application by December 2025.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
22.77 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-44
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 4.2, 6.1
6.1d. Support the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz in adopting more vouchers for special needs groups such as persons with disabilities or larger, low-income families with children.
Timeframe: By December 2027, support the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz in adopting more vouchers for special needs groups.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.1, 6.1
6.1e. Develop a proactive approach to inform renters about various resources that may be available to them, such as rental and security deposit assistance programs, with a focus on providing information in low-income areas like Beach Flats and Lower Ocean.
Timeframe: Develop a program by March 2025 to proactively inform renters about resources that may be available to them and continue the program thereafter on an ongoing basis.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department.
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 5.4, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 1, 4; Citywide, with a focus on areas of greater occurrence of lower incomes (particularly downtown, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean); Assist a minimum of 100 households throughout the planning period.
Policy 6.2
Support affordable housing and the siting of new housing that furthers fair housing.
Santa Cruz recognizes that the location of affordable housing can help counter historic patterns of segregation in land use. The City will look for ways to expand housing opportunities in single-family zoning and areas of higher resources based on the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) and HCD data.
Objectives:
6.2a. Annually conduct outreach to developers and community organizations to identify development opportunities and incentives for the creation of affordable housing units.
Timeframe: Annually conduct outreach to developers and community organizations to identify development opportunities and incentives for the creation of affordable housing units.
22.78 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-45
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.7, 2.2, 2.4, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, with a focus on areas within a half-mile of high quality transit, where amenities are nearby and where affordable projects are eligible for additional density bonus benefits; Engage developers and community organizations annually with the goal of facilitating at least one 100 percent affordable housing project per year.
6.2b. Continue to implement the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance to create mixed-income developments throughout the City. Facilitate the development of a minimum of 250 affordable units through the Inclusionary Ordinance.
Timeframe: Continue to implement the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance to create mixedincome developments throughout the City to create at least 250 affordable units through the Inclusionary Ordinance.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.1, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide; 250 affordable units.
6.2c. Revise ADU regulations to provide additional units in single-family zoning by such methods as removing owner occupancy requirements, allowing additional ADUs under certain circumstances, or similar measures.
Timeframe: By May 2024, conduct community outreach and present City Council with a proposed amendment to the ADU regulations to further support ADU development.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; single-family zoned neighborhoods; Facilitate the development of 100 ADUs throughout the planning period through additional engagement and ADU regulation amendment(s).
22.79 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-46
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
6.2d. Adopt an ordinance that expands housing opportunities in single-family zones by amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of larger homes to multiple units when doing so would currently exceed limitations on types of housing allowed and would currently exceed density limits.
Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Ordinance amendments to expand housing opportunities in single-family zones by December 2029.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; single-family zoned neighborhoods; 10 affordable housing units through the planning period.
6.2e. Expand the use of Flexible Density Units into more zoning districts in conjunction with an SB 10 overlay district to provide opportunities for more small units in the City, particularly in higher resource areas.
Timeframe: Conduct community outreach and present Council with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to expand the use of Flexible Density Units in conjunction with an SB 10 overlay district by December 2026.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide, with a focus on higher resource areas and high quality transit corridors and a half-mile radius; Facilitate the production of 50 small units throughout the planning period in areas where such units are not currently allowed.
6.2f. Develop a local ordinance to implement SB 9 consistent with State law.
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect State law by December 2027.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 1.5, 6.2
AFFH: 1, 2; Citywide single-family neighborhoods; Aim to facilitate the development of 50 SB 9 units throughout the planning period.
6.2g. Recruit residents from areas of concentrated poverty and from underrepresented groups to serve on boards, committees, task forces, and other local government decision-making or recommending bodies with the goal of identifying two new members to participate.
22.80 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-47
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Timeframe: Complete initial recruitment by January 2025, and then continue recruitment efforts on an ongoing basis thereafter with the goals of identifying two new members to participate.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.7, 6.2
AFFH: 3; Citywide, with a focus on areas of greater occurrence of lower incomes (particularly downtown, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean); Identify two new members.
Policy 6.3
Support the development and marketing of accessible housing, senior housing, and tenant services.
The City can utilize its many communication channels to affirmatively market and promote housing opportunities throughout the city and support equal access to government-assisted housing and services.
Objectives:
6.3a. Work with landlords, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, and the regional center for developmental services to create a list of properties suitable and available for persons with disabilities and seniors.
Timeframe: By June 2027, make the list of properties available to partnering organization and publicly available on the City website.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 3.6, 6.3
6.3b. Continue to fund bi-lingual tenant legal counseling services, and continue to update and provide understandable, bi-lingual information about most readily used housing/tenant laws, such as the City’s Large Rent Increase Ordinance, Relocation Assistance Ordinance, or State rental application law.
Timeframe: Inform bi-lingual tenant legal counseling service providers of funding availability, encourage them to apply for available City funding opportunities, and update the City’s information resources as needed.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans Relevant Policies: 3.6, 5.4, 6.3
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with a focus on neighborhoods with higher rates of Spanishonly speakers; Ensure all materials and tenants services are translated or
22.81 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-48
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
available for translation. Provide such resources to relevant organizations annually, and proactively provide to households in substandard units or to those who would otherwise benefit from such materials, with a goal of providing the information to at least 50 low-income households or households in substandard units per year.
6.3c. Maintainthe AARP Age-Friendly Community designation and assemble a standing committee of City staff to coordinate projects and operations that integrate the Age-Friendly Community program pillars.
Timeframe: Complete a needs assessment by January 2025 and continue City staff coordination on relevant projects on an ongoing basis thereafter.
Agency: Parks and Recreation Department, Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 2.4, 3.6, 5.5, 6.3
Policy 6.4
Consider displacement risks due to new development, economic trends, and the environment, and provide community investments to support fair housing.
Santa Cruz understands that new development can increase the risk of displacement, especially for sensitive populations. It is also known that sensitive populations are more likely to live in areas susceptible to displacement due to climate change and other environmental factors and the City can work towards mitigating those displacement risks.
Objectives:
6.4a. Apply for at least one grant per year focused on improving community assets such as recreational facilities and programs, social service programs, parks, streets, active transportation, and infrastructure in areas identified as those in highest need.
Timeframe: Apply for at least one grant per year focused on improving community assets such as recreational facilities and programs, social service programs, parks, streets, active transportation, and infrastructure in areas identified as those in highest need.
Agency: Economic Development and Housing Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, State and Federal grants and loans, General Fund
Relevant Policies: 4.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with a focus on areas identified as those in highest need; Apply for at least one grant per year. Receive a grant award for and implement at least three projects or programs during the reporting period.
22.82 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-49
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
6.4b. Amend the City’s Relocation Ordinance to include Right of First Refusal requirements for existing, low-income households who are vacated from their housing situation due to redevelopment.
Timeframe: Present to City Council amendments to the City’s Relocation Ordinance by September 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide, with a focus on neighborhoods with greater amounts of lower income households (Beach Flats and Lower Ocean); Provide available resources to all existing, low-income households who are vacated due to redevelopment, on a project-by-project basis and within two months of a formal development application being filed.
6.4c. Maintain, implement, and update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and Climate Adaptation Plan (CAdP) on the required schedule to, among other things, reduce the likelihood of displacement associated with flooding, sea level rise, and wildfire.
Timeframe: Maintain, implement, and update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 6.1. 6.4. 7.4
6.4d. Provide assistance to tenants by maintaining the City’s Large Rent Increase Ordinance and expand outreach efforts to actively disseminate information on the City’s Large Rent Increase Ordinance to landlords enrolled in the Residential Rental Inspection Program and to tenants throughout the City.
Timeframe: By December 2024, create a process to provide information on the City’s Large Rent Increase Ordinance to landlords enrolled in the Residential Rental Inspection Program.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; Citywide; Provide assistance to all tenants throughout the planning period by maintaining the Large Rent Increase Ordinance and expanding outreach – aim to engage at least 50 households annually.
22.83 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-50
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
6.4e. Maintain the City’s mobile home rent control ordinance.
Timeframe: Maintain the City’s mobile home rent control ordinance.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 6.1, 6.4
AFFH: 3, 4; Mobile Home Parks; Maintain the mobile home rent control ordinance.
6.4f. Approach the Housing Authority, Community Action Board, or other community partner about exploring the potential to administer a universalrental application form that minimizes costs and administrative hurdles for rental applications.
Timeframe: Coordinate with community partners and determine the feasibility of a universal rental application form by June 2025.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 6.2, 6.4
7. Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship
The City of Santa Cruz remains committed to protecting the beauty and integrity of its natural environment, particularly in light of anticipated population growth, consumption levels, climate change, technology impacts, tourism, and other pressures associated with urban life. Balancing environmental preservation with fulfilling the City’s housing needs and the provision of infrastructure and services remains a priority.
Santa Cruz residents benefit from a range of natural features, including hillsides, rivers and streams, the ocean and coastline, air quality, and forestland. These resources enhance the quality of life for Santa Cruz residents and make Santa Cruz a popular tourist destination. The City remains committed to protecting the beauty and integrity of its natural environment, particularly in light of anticipated impacts noted above. Climate adaptation strategies and adaptive design approaches to building in climate hazard zones are also needed. Balancing environmental preservation with housing goals and the provision of infrastructure and services remains a priority.
Policy 7.1
Implement the City’s Securing Our Water Future policy.
Santa Cruz produces and delivers to nearly 100,000 water customers inside the City of Santa Cruz and in adjacent areas outside the City limits in unincorporated Santa Cruz County and the City of Capitola. The City’s major source of supply is the San Lorenzo River and other surface water sources, which have also been identified as a sensitive habitat for coho salmon and steelhead trout. The City has reached agreements with state and federal regulators to provide the instream flows needed to support and enhance recovery of threatened steelhead trout and endangered coho salmon. These flow commitments have been integrated into the City’s water supply augmentation planning efforts that are designed to improve the reliability of Santa Cruz’s water
22.84 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-51
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
supply with a special focus on increasing supply resiliency in the face of longer and more frequent droughts.
Santa Cruz water service customers have achieved and are sustaining an unprecedented level of water use efficiency that is supported by a strong community ethic focused on sustainability. Santa Cruz residents’ current indoor and outdoor water use is approximately 44 gallons per capita per day, making it one of the most efficient water utilities in the country. The City has an ongoing commitment to encourage the continuation of efficient water use practices and behaviors and is supporting this goal through investments in advanced metering technology that provides customers with real-time access to their water use and supports virtually instantaneous leak detection. As new housing stock is developed, local per capita water usage is expected to continue to decrease through the increased proportion of multi-family housing using highlyefficient fixtures and appliances required by current codes. Recent work to update the City’s water supply reliability policy recognizes the importance of the community’s ongoing commitment to water use efficiency, but also acknowledges that, by itself, water conservation cannot resolve the system’s long-standing water supply reliability problem. This long-standing problem is, in fact, becoming even more challenging in the face of climate change that is increasing the variability of the City’s water supply resources.
The City’s newly adopted Securing Our Water Future policy has supply augmentation as its focus because, given the already highly efficient level of water use by most customers, demand reduction through mandatory restrictions or water rationing are no longer relatively low cost and simple to implement solutions. The policy establishes a supply reliability goal of both planning for climate change conditions and meeting customer water demand given the assumption of ongoing water use efficiency. Growth in water demand has only a marginal impact on overall water system demand. Climate driven water supply variability, in which there is an increase in the frequency and length of back-to-back droughts, is making the system’s long-standing vulnerability to droughts a critical priority for action.
Objectives:
7.1a. Implement a water supply augmentation strategy consistent with the adopted City water policy and plans.
Timeframe: Implement the City’s Securing Our Water Future supply augmentation strategies.
Agency: Water Department
Funding Source: Enterprise Funds
Relevant Policies: 7.1
22.85 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-52
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
7.1b. Plan for water supply reliability to meet all customer water demand under climate change conditions and maintain a continuing emphasis on reinforcing current levels of customer water use efficiency.
Timeframe: Use the City’s Securing Our Water Future policy to plan for water supply reliability on an ongoing basis.
Agency: Water Department
Funding Source: Enterprise Funds
Relevant Policies: 7.1
7.1c. Ensure that adequate solid waste, stormwater, and sewer services continue to be available for residents and businesses through advance planning. Evaluate conveyance capacity as part of development application review, and identify and implement steps to upgrade conveyance capacity when necessary.
Timeframe: Plan for and implement strategies to ensure that adequate solid waste, stormwater, and sewer services continue to be available for residents and businesses, both proactively and as part of the development review process.
Agency: Public Works Department
Funding Source: Enterprise Funds
Relevant Policies: 7.1
Policy 7.2
Support green building principles and building decarbonization efforts to reduce and respond to global warming and impact of climate change.
Santa Cruz is committed to protecting the environment and promoting a sustainable community.
To fulfill this commitment, the City implements a Green Building Ordinance that requires construction projects to attain a minimum number of “green building points” to be able to obtain building permits. The program works in conjunction with other programs to include best management practices, deconstruction and reuse of materials, erosion control and grading ordinances, energy and waste management, and application to residential, commercial, and industrial projects.
The City also has an ordinance that prohibits natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The ordinance reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves indoor air quality and safety.
Consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City is conducting outreach and research as the initial step in developing building decarbonization and electrification ordinance language for existing buildings. Additionally, the City implements the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), which was established to meet the AB 32 goals of establishing a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020. The State has recently released an updated 2022 CalGreen Code. The City will amend its Municipal Code and the Green Building Ordinance where necessary to complement the 2022 CalGreen standards.
22.86 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-53
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
The City developed its Green Building Program in 2005, prior to the adoption of CalGreen. As CalGreen, which was published several years after the City’s program, has evolved, many of the City’s standards have been incorporated into CalGreen. As the City’s program incorporates a point system that is calculated through a checklist and CalGreen also requires an additional checklist, the City is considering changes that might achieve the same sustainability goals while reducing the time and paperwork burden on the developer.
Objectives:
7.2a. Expand upon current efforts to decarbonize and electrify existing buildings, including seeking incentives for the associated construction and remodeling.
Timeframe: Use the Climate Action Plan to support decarbonization and electrification efforts on an ongoing basis.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.3, 5.3, 7.2, 7.4
7.2b. Continue to support green building principles and the existing building decarbonization and electrification efforts. Consider adjustments to the programs as needed to respond to external conditions and meet the City’s latest sustainability goals.
Timeframe: Support the City’s current green building, decarbonization, and electrification efforts on an ongoing basis.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 7.2, 7.4
7.2c. Amend the Municipal Code and Green Building Ordinance to compliment the 2022 CalGreen Code.
Timeframe: By December 2025, amend the Municipal Code and Green Building Ordinance to reflect the 2022 CalGreen Code.
Agency: City Manager’s Office, Planning and Community Development Department Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 7.2
7.2d. Use the Climate Action Plan’s Development Compliance Checklist as part of review of all new housing projects to support relevant Climate Action Plan actions and help ensure compliance.
Timeframe: Use the Climate Action Plan’s Development Compliance Checklist for development review on an ongoing basis and update the Climate Action Plan targets, measures, and actions as required by the State.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, City Manager’s Office
22.87 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-54
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 7.2, 7.4
Policy 7.3
Support transit-oriented development and non-motorized transportation.
Santa Cruz’s desire to preserve environmental features, protect sensitive habitats, and shape future urban growth led to the establishment of a greenbelt surrounding the community.
Residents recognized as a quid pro quo that future housing growth would be accommodated within a dense urban core and along major transportation corridors. The City supports connections between land uses and transportation networks (including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) to minimize automotive dependence. In addition, the State has recently passed a number of laws encouraging denser residential development close to high-quality transportation. To that end, the City is processing high-density multifamily projects in the Downtown Core, single-room occupancy units and mixed-use developments along major corridors, and other similar projects. Zoning Ordinance incentives allow for higher density residential structures in these areas because of their proximity to transportation, public services, and facilities.
Objectives:
7.3a. Facilitate the development of transit-oriented development through General Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards.
Timeframe: Follow the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to facilitate transit-oriented development on an ongoing basis.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 1.3, 7.3
7.3b. Collaborate with City departments and other local agencies to link land uses and transportation systems and promote bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.
Timeframe: Collaborate with City department and other local agencies on an ongoing basis to support quality land use and transportation interplay and promote bikeable and walkable neighborhoods.
Agency: Planning and Community Development Department, Public Works Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 1.2, 7.3
22.88 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-55
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 7.4
Support the safety of existing and future households as climate emergencies such as floods and wildfires occur more frequently due to climate change.
The City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan was adopted in June 2012 and amended in October 2019 to include the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan per SB 379. Senate Bill 1035 (SB 1035) requires the City to revise its Hazards, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan to identify flood hazards and address the risk of fire hazards in certain lands upon each revision of the Housing Element.
Additionally, Santa Cruz experienced severe damage and displacement events due to floods and fires during the 5th planning cycle – including the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire and 2023 bomb cyclone flooding event. As such, the City recognizes the dire need to ensure the safety of existing and future households as climate emergencies occur more often due to climate change. In 2019, the City adopted a Wildland-Urban Interface ordinance to ensure that new building projects adjacent to wildlands, where fire danger is higher than in the City core, address fire safety issues in building construction.
Objectives:
7.4a. Publish and maintain an emergency resources page on the City’s website.
Timeframe: Publish an emergency resources page on the City's website by January 2026 and maintain it thereafter.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 7.4
7.4b. Use a variety of means such as social media, text messages, targeted reverse 911, City and other websites, press releases, and email lists to provide emergency information quickly.
Timeframe: Utilize available tools to provide emergency information quickly on an ongoing basis.
Agency: City Manager’ s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 7.4
7.4c. Update and implement Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan, both of which identify programs, resources, and policy decisions for areas at risk of flooding and fires.
Timeframe: Update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan by June 2024.
Agency: City Manager’s Office
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: 7.4
22.89 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-56
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
C.Quantified Objectives
Table 2-1 summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for the 6th planning cycle by income level.
Table 2-1: 6th Cycle Quantified Objectives
Objectives
Units by Income Level
Very
Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL
6th Cycle RHNA 859 562 709 1,606 3,736
New Construction
ADU Production1 351 176 57 584
Pipeline Projects1 770 311 1,569 2,650
Affordable units with access to childcare
facilities 30 20 50
Housing for Persons with Disabilities 75 25 100
Student Housing 305 305
Workforce Housing 25 75 100
Affordable units built through the
Inclusionary Ordinance 150 100 250
Extremely low-income2 100 100
Conservation and Preservation
Rehabilitation 100 100
Preservation of At-Risk Units 372 372
Household Assistance
Special needs households 150 50 200
Persons experiencing homelessness 100 100
Rental and tenant assistance programs 50 20 70
AFFH Metrics
1.3e. Increased Residential Density in Transit
Rich Areas 50 50
2.1a. Inclusionary Ordinance Review 250 250
2.2f. Single-Room Occupancy and Flexible
Density Unit Regulations 100 100
3.1b. Housing for Persons with Disabilities 50 50
3.7b. Workforce Housing 50 50
3.7c. Seasonal Housing 50 50
4.1a. Outreach and Assist Low-to moderateincome households 100 100
4.2b. Continuation of the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund 100 100
5.1.a. Maintaining the Quality of
Neighborhoods and Housing
80 80
5.1b. Offer Special Code Compliance
Assistance 20 20
5.2a. Continuation of the City’s Rental
Inspection Program 100 100
5.2b. Develop and Expanded Outreach
Program to the City’s Rental Inspection
Program
100 100
22.90 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-57
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2-1: 6th Cycle Quantified Objectives
Objectives
Units by Income Level
Very
Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL
6th Cycle RHNA 859 562 709 1,606 3,736
5.3a. Local, State, and Federal Partnership 100 100
5.3b. Seek out Housing Rehabilitation
Program Funding 50 50
5.4b. Annual Neighborhood Meeting 50 50
5.4c. Utilize the HUD NRSA Designation 100 100
5.5b. Adopt Anti-Displacement Policies,
Programs, or Code Amendments 100 100
5.5c. Establish a Rental Protection Programs
and Distribute Information Citywide 25 25
6.2b. Inclusionary Ordinance 250 250
6.2d. Adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to expand in Single-Family zones 10 10
6.2e. Small Units in Higher Resource Areas 50 50
6.2f. Consistency with SB 9 50 50
6.3b. Providing Bi-lingual Tenants Resources 50 50
Notes:
1. See Table G-2
2. Extremely low-income unit need is calculated as half of the very low-income RHNA, which is 429 units.
22.91 Community Engagement
Appendix A
22.92 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-2
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
A.Summary of Community Engagement
Section 65583(c)(9) of the Government Code states, “local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing.
Beginning in Fall 2022, the City conducted a variety of outreach and engagement efforts detailed in this Appendix. As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council.
The initial Public Review draft was available to the public for over 30 days and all subsequent drafts were available to the public for at least 7 days. All public comments were considered by the City and addressed in the Housing Element where appropriate.
1. Community Workshop #1
On September 29, 2022, the City held its first virtual community workshop to introduce the Housing Element update process and provide details on how the community could stay engaged through adoption and certification. The workshop and presentation were made available in both English and Spanish, and the recordings for both are available on the City’s webpage.
Participants were able to provide
thoughts and input in real-time
through live polling activities and a
Q&A. Feedback received noted the
high cost of housing in Santa Cruz
and the limitations in current
choices. This was also noted as a
challenge to accessing housing.
Participants shared that large
households are common as people
seek out multiple roommates to
afford housing. When housing does
become available,
applicants face
competition issues.
Additionally,
participants shared
that it’s difficult for
students to find
housing, which further
increases competition
and scarcity of units.
Studios and
22.93 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-3
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
cooperative housing/co-ops were suggested as solutions to the problems in order to provide more units at lower costs.
When it came down to the selection of housing types, workshop participants noted a greater need for multi-family housing and affordable units.
Participants were asked about where they would recommend future housing development. They heavily favored the Downtown area, as
well as major corridors, the west side,
Mission Street, and industrial areas.
Lastly, workshop participants were
asked about what they valued about
Santa Cruz’s existing neighborhoods.
They emphasized the importance of
walkability, landscaping/streetscape,
and proximity to resources,
employment, and services.
2. Online Community Survey
Between September 29 to November 14, 2022, the City gathered community feedback through an online survey. The survey posed questions regarding housing type needs, favorable locations for future housing development, policy considerations, and visions for the future of the City. A total of 421 survey responses were collected. Overall, the general sentiment was that affordable and multi-family housing is needed within the community. Participants felt that ADUs would be the best housing type to incorporate into existing single-family neighborhoods, but the Downtown area as well as the general west side and lower west side would be best suited for future multifamily developments. The full survey summary report is attached to this appendix.
3. Neighborhood Events
22.94 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-4
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
City Staff attended several neighborhood and community events to provide information on the Housing Element and collect input from segments of the community that may be harder to reach.
These included three neighborhood clean-up events in the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean Street communities and a Nueva Vista Community Resources food distribution event. Poster boards at the events included the questions listed below with dots for the participants to select an answer.
The format of the boards was intended to facilitate quick participation. The following graphs illustrate the responses received at each event.
What housing challenges have you experienced?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Finding housing
Cost of housing
Large rent increase
Availability of accessible housing (ADA)
Eviction
Maintenance (needs paint, mold problems, roof
leaks, plumbing problems, etc.)
Beach Flats Oct. 1 Lower Ocean Oct. 15 Lower Ocean Oct. 19
22.95 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-5
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
In which areas of the City would you like to see future housing development? What do you value about your neighborhood?
What would you like more of in your neighborhood?
0 5 10 15 20 25
Upper west side
Lower west side
Upper east side
Lower east side
Beach Flats
Downtown
Along major corridors (Ocean St., Soquel Ave., Water
St., Mission St.)
Beach Flats Oct. 1 Lower Ocean Oct. 15 Lower Ocean Oct. 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Family, friends, and neighbors
Cost of housing
Close to work
Neighborhood park
Community services available
School system
Access to beach, shopping, and food
Beach Flats Oct. 1 Lower Ocean Oct. 15 Lower Ocean Oct. 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Affordable housing
Different types of housing
Shopping access
Bike lanes and wider sidewalks
Parking
Trees
Increased housing maintenance
Lower Ocean Oct. 15 Lower Ocean Oct. 19
22.96 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-6
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
4. Focus Groups
Between November 2022 and January 2023, the City held focus group meetings with various community groups, representatives, and housing developers. Responses from each focus group meeting can be found in the attachment of this appendix. Seniors (November 29, 2022)
o Participants from the senior focus group felt that community integration, home affordability, and medical assistance are some housing challenges that they face.
Participants had mixed opinions on the different housing needs and creative solutions and opportunities. They recommended various programs including subsidies from the County. Lastly, participants believed there should be a variety of services provided to seniors such as legal and technology services. Students, YA, and Renters (November 29, 2022)
o Participants from this focus group felt that the lack of low-income housing and tenants’ rights for students are some of the biggest housing challenges they face.
Participants felt that Santa Cruz needs a variety of housing options but had mixed opinions on the types of programs the City needed the most. Participants proposed varying creative solutions and opportunities during the focus group meeting and identified some areas on the west side of the City, particularly near the UCSC campus, as areas of opportunity for future development. LatinX – in-person meeting (December 5, 2022)
o The representatives from the LatinX stakeholder group felt that Santa Cruz needs a variety of housing options, but had different opinions on the housing types.
Housing types such as Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and workforce housing were proposed. The participants also recommended various programs such as funding for affordable housing and making resources easily accessible. They proposed outreach to affordable housing developers as a possible solution and opportunity in Santa Cruz. Areas beyond Western Drive and Golf Club Drive were identified by the participants as potential areas for future development. Community Groups (December 7, 2022)
o Participants identified zoning constraints as one of the housing challenges that they face. There were no responses received for most needed Housing Types in Santa Cruz. Participants had mixed opinions on the types of programs Santa Cruz most needs and the types of partnerships that the City should seek out. Overall, participants identified parking requirements and density bonuses as possible creative solutions and opportunities in Santa Cruz. Finally, participants believed that land near transportation corridors would be suitable areas of opportunity for future developments.
Developers (December 7, 2022)
o For affordable units, participants felt that various permitting and development fees as well as the lack of vouchers presented development challenges. For market-rate units, participants had mixed opinions on development challenges in Santa Cruz.
Participants also had mixed opinions on creative solutions and opportunities and areas of opportunity for future developments.
22.97 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-7
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
5. Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
The City held meetings with Planning Commission on April 20, 2023, and City Council on April 25, 2023. An informational presentation for each provided details on the contents of the Public Review Draft Housing Element, the candidate sites identified, policies and objectives to advance the City’s housing goals, and summaries of public involvement. City Staff answered questions and received guidance on revisions to be made prior to submittal of the Draft to HCD. These meetings also provided the community with opportunities to ask questions and make public comments.
6. City Council Housing Element Subcommittee
Beginning in 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council created an official City Council Housing Element Subcommittee to provide input and feedback on the candidate sites selection and housing goals and policies. The subcommittee is comprised of Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers KalantariJohnson and Newsome who regularly met with City Staff to discuss revisions and additions to the Draft Housing Element. These Subcommittee meetings supplemented Planning Commission and City Council meetings and allowed for more in-depth review.
7. Other Outreach
In addition to the specific events noted above, City representatives met individually with several groups as well as representatives of housing developers and individuals interested in the Housing Element. The groups included Santa Cruz YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) and COPA (Communities Organized for Power in Action), an organization made up of a variety of religious institutions dedicated to working together to help solve problems of social justice, food scarcity, and housing, among other community issues.
City representatives also gave presentations on the Housing Element Update at other events including a community meeting held for the Coral Street Visioning Project and a COPA-sponsored educational event on the housing crisis and the Housing Element. Interviews with various publications including the Santa Cruz Sentinel and City on a Hill Press provided additional information and outreach to the public.
The Council Subcommittee met twice in the summer of 2023 to specifically discuss COPA’s April 2023 comments in more detail. Staff and Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson of the Subcommittee also met with COPA representatives in August 2023 to discuss the City’s responses to their comments. Staff created a separate response matrix specific to COPA’s comments to aid in these discussions and that document is included after the response table.
Following YIMBY’s comments in April, staff reached out to representatives of the statewide YIMBY Law group and the local Santa Cruz YIMBY chapter. The Council Subcommittee also met twice to specifically discuss YIMBY’s July 2023 comments. One meeting was with staff in July 2023 to review YIMBY’s comments and consider changes to the Housing Element draft based on those comments.
The other meeting was with staff and YIMBY representatives in August 2023 to review the City’s responses to their comments and discuss further potential edits. Staff created a separate response matrix specific to YIMBY’s comments to aid in these discussions and that document is included after the response table.
22.98 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-8
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
In August 2023, staff met with Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ryan Coonerty to provide an overview of the Housing Element draft and next steps and discuss the draft policies and sites inventory. In September 2023, staff met with about 50 members of the Rotary Club of Santa Cruz to provide an overview of the Housing Element draft, housing policies, and housing production approaches at the City. In October 2023, staff met with about 40 members of Leadership Santa Cruz to discuss housing issues in the City and region and provide an overview of the Housing Element Draft.
8. Housing Element Update Webpage
A webpage was created to provide background information and guide the public to outreach events and resources throughout the course of the update process. The website provides information about the update process, key features of the housing element, recorded meetings, a project timeline, resources, and contact information. The website also provided a link to the community survey as well as a contact form for interested persons to sign up for the email list and provide comments to the Housing Element Update team. The website is available at:
https://tinyurl.com/santacruzhousingelement.
All outreach materials, reports, and Drafts are available to the public on through the Housing Element Update webpage.
In addition to the email signup available on the webpage, the City maintains a list of all groups and individuals who have expressed an interest in receiving information about the Housing Element.
Notices about public events are sent to both the webpage list and the contact list. For public review of each draft of the Housing Element, the drafts were posted to the website and notices were sent to all interested parties and to those who had commented on previous drafts.
22.99 Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-9
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
B. Community Survey Summary Report
This section contains the summary report for the community survey conducted between September 29 and November 14, 2022.
22.100
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Community Survey SummaryReport
On September 29, 2022, the City launched an online community survey to gather input on housing needs and policy programs. The survey was available through November 14, 2022, and it gathered a total of 421 responses. This report details the input received and respondent demographics.
1. Housing Type Needs
The survey asked participantsto select the housing types that they think are needed in Santa Cruz.Overall, the data shows a need for Affordable Housing and Multi-Family Housing over other housing types.
Participants also highly favored For-Rent Apartments over For-Sale Condos. Participants least favored Townhomes and Multi-Generational Housing. Table 1 includes additional recommendations provided under the Other category.
2. Priority Housing Types
Participants were asked to select three housing types from the previous survey question to prioritize in future developments in Santa Cruz. Overall, the data shows that participants favored Affordable Housing, Multi-Family Housing, and For-Rent Apartments.
302
228
163
366
212
146
278
227
249
192
196
243
69 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Multi-Family Housing
ADUs
Townhomes
Affordable Housing
Duplexes/Triplexes
For-Sale Condos
For-Rent Apartments
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Mixed-Income Housing
Multi-Generational Housing
Senior Housing
Supportive or Transitional Housing
Other
22.101
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3. Housing Types in Existing Single-Family Neighborhoods To assess other housing opportunities, the survey asked participants what housing types they could see being added in existing single-family neighborhoods. Overall, most participants reported ADUs. In second and third, participants preferred Duplexes/Triplexes and 1-3 Story Apartments. The results show that participants were least interested in adding denser and taller developments and preferred to see a continuity in development types.
181
68 38
286
63 36
160
54 96
41 50
96 40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Multi-Family Housing
ADUs
Townhomes
Affordable Housing
Duplexes/Triplexes
For-Sale Condos
For-Rent Apartments
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Mixed-Income Housing
Multi-Generational Housing
Senior Housing
Supportive or Transitional Housing
Other
272
163
249
149
232
124
35 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
ADUs
Townhomes
Duplexes/Triplexes
Mixed-Use Development
1-3 Story Apartment Condos
Apartments/Condos 4 Stories or highers
Other
22.102
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
4. Areas for Housing Development
The survey asked participants if there were any areas where they think future housing should be developed. The responses highly favored the Downtown area, followed by the West Side, Lower West Side, and transit corridor. Participants generally showed interest in developing housing city-wide. Areas around High Street, Lower East, Bay Street, the Golf Course were recommended to be left as-is. All survey responses are shown in Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development.
5. For-Sale or For-Rent Housing
Needs
The survey asked participants what type of housing is
more needed in Santa Cruz between for-sale and forrent housing. The responses show a lack of both, but with an emphasis on for-rent. Few participants
believed that there is a lack of just for-sale housing in the City.
6. Programs
Community Assistance
To gain feedback and perspective on potential community assistance programs, participants were asked to rate different issues based on importance (1 being the most important and 5 being the least important).
Overall, participants favored housing information and rental assistance. Property maintenance received the most 3-rating responses – indicating a general interest but not of heavy importance.
Fair Housing
Additional programs relating to fair housing assistance were also provided to provide examples and gain insight into the community’s sentiments on the topic. As with community assistance, participants were asked to rate the different issues based on importance (1 being the most important and 5 being the least important). Overall, most participants were in support of all four fair housing programs. Supportive housing and the promotion of fair housing both collected the most support through “1” and “2” ratings. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Housing rental assistance (Identify funding
assistance for renters - rental assistance and aging in place)
Property maintenance (Programs to provide funding
for home maintenance, rehabilitation, and upkeep)
Housing information (Information on affordable
housing opportunities and funding available to the
public)
1 2 3 4 5
162
16 242
Rent
Sale
Both
22.103
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Programs to assist persons with disabilities and seniors collected the most “3” ratings – indicating an interest but not an urgency in addressing.
7. Special Housing Needs Groups
Jurisdictions are required to address the various housing needs of special needs groups. The survey asked participants which HCD-defined special housing needs groups were most in need of housing and/or related services in Santa Cruz. Overall, participants believed that persons experiencing homelessness were most in need of housing and/or related services. Students, persons with disabilities, and seniors over 65 years of age also received higher scores. This indicates a need to specifically address the needs of these four groups and consider additional programs for each. As part of the Housing Element outreach, the City held stakeholder meetings with students/renters, homeless and disability service providers, and seniors. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Promote fair housing (Provide programs and policies
to address fair housing issues)
Senior Housing Programs (Encourage the
development of housing that is accessible and
supportive for senior citizens)
Persons with disabilities (Encourage the
development of housing accessible to persons with
disabilities)
Supportive Housing (Provide for emergency short
and long-term housing needs)
1 2 3 4 5
139
66 144
308
91 82
187
50 38
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Seniors (65+ years)
Large households
Persons with disabilities
Persons experiencing homelessness
Female-headed households
Farmworkers
Students
Veterans
Other
22.104
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
8. Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz
The survey below asked participants to describe their
vision for the future of housing in Santa Cruzin 20 words or less. In total, 421 responses were received. Out of all of the responses, residents of Santa Cruz envisioned a
future with affordable housing, housing variety, greater bikability and walkability, an increased in mixed-uses, and higher density near Downtown and transit corridors.
Allsurvey responses are shown in Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz.
9. Demographics
The survey concluded with questions on demographics
to understand who was reached and who provided
feedback. This was aimed at ensuring equity in
engagement.
The questions collected information about whether
participants live or work in Santa Cruz, which
neighborhood or area they live in, whether they are a
renter or homeowner, and their age.
At 56 percent, over half of participants live and work in the city. Another 22 percent live in Santa Cruz and seven percent work in the city. Students represented four
percent of respondents. Eight percent selected “other.” Of those who noted they live in Santa Cruz, 41 percent
are renters and 51 percent are homeowners. In addition, 46 percent live on the west side of the city, 41 percent live on the east side, and 13 percent live downtown. This shows a fair split between the two sides of Santa Cruz
where the majority of housing and neighborhoods are
located.
Lastly, the age breakdown of participants also remained fairly even. A total of 20 percent were 65 years or older, 20 percent were 50-64 years, and 31 percent were
between 35-49 years. Young adults between 18 and 34
represented 29 percent of respondents.
93 31
234
10 18
33 I live in Santa
Cruz
I work in Santa
Cruz
Both - I live and
work in Santa
Cruz
I own property in
Santa Cruz that I
rent to others
I am a student
Other
6%
20%
20%
6%
26%
10%
13%
Upper West
Side
Lower West
Side
West Side
Upper East Side
East Side
Seabright
Downtown
121
129
84 84
Less than 18
years
18-34 years
35-49 years
50-64 years
65 years or
older
22.105
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 1: Other “Housing Types” Recommendations
SROs very low income senior housing/assisted living for seniors living on Social Security only;
Very dense housing Housing for childcare providers
Student housing Mental Health Supportive Housing and Tiny Homes Housing no higher than 4 stories including
affordable house & Density bonus
High density housing near centers of work, the
university, and main transit routes. E.g 10+ story
apartments
Price-Restricted Housing With Resale
Restrictions
Co-living
Affordable mobile home parks on City
properties
Housing opportunities for individuals experiencing
homelessness who may have barriers to low-income
housing. Also, meaningful housing opportunities for
individuals with mental illness.;
On campus housing for UCSC students and
staff
Small Entry Level units needed greatly, ex: micro
apartments & micro flats. Alongside mixed-use
buildings.;
Single income housing Social/Public Housing
housing for Developmentally Disabled Section 8 specific - people willing to accept vouchers and incentive for those people
There is nothing avail for adults with
disabilities. we are struggling
Housing for homeless youth
Single-family housing Free nightly private pods for anyone who asks. Junkie, student, traveler, mendicant monk, anyone
Tiny homes as transitional housing for those
experiencing homelessness
Missing Middle Housing
Dense high rise apartment buildings Low cost/subsidized RV park for those who can document a long term Santa Cruz residency;
Mixed-use developments very low income senior housing/assisted living for seniors living on Social Security only;
Workforce housing Housing for childcare providers
housing specifically for public servants
(police officers, teachers, firefighters) and a
separate neighborhood for ultra-dense UCSC
housing
Mental Health Supportive Housing and Tiny Homes
Tiny home villages; including cooperative
living resources and community
High density housing near centers of work, the
university, and main transit routes. E.g 10+ story
apartments
manufactured homes (aka mobile homes Co-living
tiny homes Housing opportunities for individuals experiencing homelessness who may have barriers to low-income
housing. Also, meaningful housing opportunities for
individuals with mental illness.;
trailer courts with low cost mobile homes Immediate transitional housing such as safe parking spaces for RVs, supportive camps for those most at
risk of becoming "on the streets" homeless
22.106
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Multi-family in areas with high median income to increase equity and diversity.
West side
downtown, busy streets throughout town
Lower west side needs more mixed use development to be more walkable to amenities. Grocery store with apartments on top on the lower west side would be fab.
NOT on the corner of Branciforte and Water st.
Everywhere, no one can get housing.
Corridors should be prioritized for the most dense development (4+ stories), increase density in single family adjacent to corridors stepping it down as you get further from the major corridors, increase the housing types in single family neighborhoods to increase density and better utilize available land, we need to encourage as much infill redevelopment as possible Near base of the UCSC campus and along major commuter routes to campus. All throughout the west side.
Downtown & lower West side near campus
downtown area and lower west side
Downtown; west side. Density near transit, services, schools, etc. downtown and lower west side
Areas with access to everyday needs, like bus, shopping, recreation, grocery stores, etc. corridors, downtown, harvey west? (unsure), lower ocean, beach flats, close to university (maybe along highstreet)
I think downtown and the upper west side near the base of the UCSC campus would be best as they are closest to transit leading to UCSC and downtown. Another area for more housing would be along the Mission Street corridor where there are more shops and transit as well. downtown and base of UCSC campus
Downtown and the west side on the hill
The downtown core should absolutely be densified, with the mixed use library project and the Church parking lot project excellent examples. Single family zoning citywide should be abolished completely; at a minimum, it should be legal and simple to convert pretty much any existing SFH to a duplex to fourplex. Hundreds if not thousands of students and workers are renting existing single family homes at exorbitant rents because of the housing shortage. I live with six other students in a house built for one family on the upper west side, and I am considered lucky among my peers. It is absolutely the university's responsibility to build more housing on its campus but the Upper West Side and Lower West Side in particular need more units available to rent; it will massively ease UCSC students' housing burden (we are the most food and housing insecure student body in the UC system in no small part to the city's failure to build housing) and benefit existing residents and their children, who would otherwise never be able to live in this city.
Everywhere, but especially the areas of "highest resource" such as the upper and lower westside, de la viega, and seabright neighborhoods.
Upper westside on the large lot near Western Dr. Deleware Ave near Natural Bridges Dr. UCSC for student housing.
By westside Parrish/Safeway where Shebrah puts her giant signs Convert San Lorenzo park
Upper Westside, close to the University
22.107
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Every single area of the City needs to have more housing. Downtown can be a focus, but we need to prioritize building housing near the main transit corridors, again in all areas of the City.
All over. Density is the answer.
Apartments/condos & duplex/triplexes in the Westside, as well as apartments/condos in the lower downtown area.
Multi-Unit apartments/condos should be developed with commercial below along Soquel Avenue, Ocean Street, Front, Pacific, Mission Street, etc. The major transit corridors for Metro with access to services close by.
High density housing that is subsidized in one form or another should be located near commercial and transit corridors. ADUs and duplexes are appropriate in neighborhoods with single family homes.
Santa Cruz has already added many units in high rise buildings. It isn't appropriate or necessary to continue to build beyond where commute and services can be provided. If we want to maintain a good quality of life, there are limits to be considered. We needn't house everyone that wants to live here, it isn't possible.
Restricting or eliminating short term rental properties could free up housing for year-round tenants.
My neighborhood used to have many homes that rented to students and young professionals. Those properties were sold and converted to Airbnbs. The city enjoys the tax revenue but has removed hundreds of units of housing.
No
I think housing needs to be developed everywhere in Santa Cruz, with an emphasis on higher densities along transportation corridors.
1) All curches in SCC that benefit from tax breaks should be REQUIRED to house homeless families/teens in their parking lots (this program can/should be expanded before entering any more neighborhoods). Perhaps the more they take on, the more of a tax break they rcv. 2) No more housing of homeless/trailors in Prospect Heights due to risk and people entering park hiking trails (we're doing our fair share w/the Armory, and their still creating fies/encampments in and adjacent to DeLa park.
So best to try another neighborhood as part of this/large motor home test before finalizing and growing at the Armory.
Downtown - good transit connections, high density mixed used Mission - major corridor, good transit, mixed use
Soquel corridor - same reasons
Harvey West seems like a great place to build larger apartment buildings, but only if proper walking/biking and busing infrastructure could be put in place to encourage non-car transportation.
UCSC should also be allowed to build more housing for students on campus, so off-campus rentals can free up for residents. Please, no more hotels.
Watsonville
East side, downtown
Opportunities to the optimize & intensify housing availability and densities should be considered everywhere, including in SFD neighborhoods
Downtown. Going into neighborhoods with 6+ story hideous buildings is outrageous, insulting to our entire City and cowardly on the side of City Government. What is happening with that giant complex that is supposed to be built on Ocean Street? That has been on the books for years but nothing is happening there. Stay out of the residential neighborhoods!!!
22.108
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
West end industrial, midtown, and downtown. Each has walkable grocery and services already in place. The infrastructure should also be more robust than Seabright or Live Oak. The roadways are already constrained making no need to expand public transport or marking and signaling. There’s probably points to bank against California climate goals as well.
North side of Delaware along the trail
West side industrial area. Watsonville.
East side especially along Soquel Ave., there are bus stops, stores, and restaurants making it a good area to develop
Anywhere and everywhere there is space.
Everywhere, but downtown is highest priority, then exurban/urban core.
Harvey west and surrounding area such as Golf Club Drive….close to employment centers.
Soquel, Water, Ocean St, Mission St… transportation corridors downtown, East side, near campus, along Bay St.
downtown along the river south of Laurel and along river street to highway one I’d love to see more 4+ story buildings on the west side to help address the UCSC housing crisis.
All of the above.
along the main corridors of ocean, mission, soquel and water, and downtown Anywhere there is an already-developed area with a surface parking lot. Westside, midtown, by Ocean Ave, near the boardwalk.
I thought the corridor idea the city was working on a few years ago was ideal. I attended a meeting to try to say so, but I was shouted down. Build along transit corridors, group near grocery stores, and, of course, concentrate downtown.
Seabright, downtown, Mission Street corridor.
Increase housing density downtown to take advantage of the shops/services, walkable neighborhood, and transit. Also maximize extra space on the west side by incentivizing homeowners to build ADUs and/or expand their homes for multi-family housing. Develop in desirable and walkable neighborhoods like Seabright and Live Oak too. Everywhere, really. We need more housing to meet demand and we need density to reduce car dependency (thereby improving air quality, noise, and GHG).
Everywhere especially West side near bus line yo UCSC, lots of infill opportunities also rezoning of unused industrially zoned space along Delaware and just below Route 1 Delaware & natural bridges drive area. Along train tracks on west side. Former homeless garden area.
Delaware Avenue; along the train tracks; open space near Toadal Fitness west side; Antonelli Pond area.
Re-zone unused or vacant industrial land. For example along the bike path/Delaware for multifamily housing.
Site of former sushi restaurant on Soquel -same side as Ristorante Italiano. Seems to be a large lot.
Housing along Ocean St, with continuous bus route along its length. Develop housing at the Emeline complex. Maybe the large field on Meder, for UCSC apartments. However, concerns about limited water supply and storage capacity must be considered realistically before adding more housing. And traffic impacts, of course.
East and west side. Downtown and midtown. UCSC campus
housing should be spread along the corridor streets at current zoning heights and densities; most of the corridors consist of open land (parking) or one story buildings, so lots more housing can be
22.109
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
provided by just going to 2 to 3 stories; the exception would be the upper part of Ocean Street which is more devoted to tourist and commercial uses and very busy -- not the most desirable street to live on.
Anywhere.
Westside: Develop that commercial space next off Delaware near Santa Cruz Nutritionals.
Downtown: Already in the works
Eastside: Plenty of old commercial buildings along Water Street can be demolished and new housing complexes can go there.
Downtown -- hub for transportation e.g., on/off hwy 17 & 1 as well as central bus depot.
Downtown -- less need to travel for groceries, food, entertainment, and outdoor public spaces Downtown -- the ability to go above the height restriction (which we definitely should go above the height restriction)
Mission St., Ocean St., Water St. - Plenty of room for dense, in-fill and mixed-use development Westside
UCSC needs to be able to house at least all of the Freshman class plus more ON CAMPUS Everywhere, especially our areas of high opportunity such as DeLa, Westside, and Seabright. downtown-converting office building interiors to affordable housing. river district-housing could be built in underutilized space near Costco. east side neighborhoods with large lot sizes are good candidates for duplex/triplex or ADUs Downtown - High density, near public transit, continue to revitalize the Downtown business environment, makes the area safer for everyone with more residents out & about. Westside area around Harvey West Park - higher density near Hwy 1/17/9 highway transportation nexus, make the area safer with more residents around. Along major road corridors with public transit-- Mission/Water, Soquel, and Westside around Swift St-Mission-Delaware.
Any and all areas situated more than 30 feet above the presnet mean sea level.
Upper Westside for students. Corridors such as Water, Soquel and Mission Streets for young professional commuters. Downtown for families.
Downtown should not be a commuter zone. We want people downtown who will enliven the city with their presence - familles. If we dedicate Downtown to students and young professional commuters downtown will remain an area devoid of a community feeling because the residents will always be gone (at work/school) and are a transient population. We need a community of long term dedicated residents who will bring vitality and a sense of 'ownership' to the city's core.
Upper and Lower westside for University students and faculty Downtown, upper and lower Westside
Build through the city low attractive housing. The industrial area on the west side would be a great area for a few high density buildings. Don’t cram everything into south downtown. The project in Live Oak is great.
Downtown--Mixed Use
Lower East and West. Let downtown be downtown.
Westside on Mission. Eastside Soquel Ave. Downtown. UCSC - mandate on site housing for all students,
No more on Water street, it is being maxed out with upcoming developments. WE do not need more smog/emissions.
22.110
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Prioritize dense development near transit with the purpose of reducing car-dependency and creating walkable neighborhoods.
All
East side for professionals who work on the west side
Everywhere
Seems like lots of pressure on Mid Town lately.
What about traffic/safety/infrastructure? With all the kickbacks or tax incentives for development, where is the planning and support for substantial extra need? If we as a community are asked to absorb the demand, the city and state and all stakeholders of the push need to be supportive and effective in securing ongoing safety and infrastructure demands.
Does the west side truly bear it's fair share (of both state mandates and of ever expanding UCSC housing needs?)
What about all the land on the west side around Swift and the old Wrigley building areas? Kind of unfair to have mid town neighborhoods bear the brunt on state-mandated growth so disproportionately.
Upper/Lower West Side, downtown
I don't think that there should be these massive, Las Vegas style apartment buildings here. There is no such thing as "affordable housing" here. If a townhome costs $400,000, it is considered affordable but it is not. I think that the use of "affordable Housing" as a descriptive is used to allow developers to build huge ugly buildings. There is no way to accommodate every single human that wants to live here "affordably". If someone wants affordability they are looking at the wrong place to live. Its just an unfortunate fact.
anywhere we have vacant land which is not a lot
Downtown and upper west side
I can't think of any area of the city where housing is not needed. For the Developmentally Disabled it is best to be bear service providers and public transit for the service providers.
Anyplace near a Metro route or shopping area. Near Cabrillo College (I know that's not the City of Santa Cruz, but it makes sense). NOT higher than 3 stories along the river or coastline. West side for student housing.
As all as it’s in a safe community, it doesn’t matter where it’s located. all areas
All around
Dont know and i am not an expert as to what housing or where. Others are more knowledgeable ... I do know that ALL housing for special needs adults is at 100% capacity. There is a massive unmet need here. We are not unique as this exists almost everywhere. It has become nearly impossible to afford to buy a 2nd home for an adult special needs person and staff it (staffing is short and terrible also) as fixer uppers start at about 800,000 dollars or more.
I think we are putting in way too many low income units already. This city cannot sustain the amount of building that is already in progress.
Downtown, east side
Anywhere within the Santa Cruz area. There is no affordable housing for those with disabilities, thus we are still waiting for a voucher for my son.
22.111
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
East side
Support focusing higher-density development on main transit corridors: Soquel, Water, Ocean, Mission, Swift, Bay, Delaware, Natural Bridges.
far westside - delaware, shaffer, mission st ext, downtown - mixed use and affordable housing In all neighborhoods
Downtown, but more housing needs to be mandated in Live Oak and in the County. The requirement for so much housing in the City needs to be reevaluated on many levels.
Lower east side
Live Oak and Westside
all- there ae possibilities everywhere and it should be spread out throughout the community Downtown, including possible expanded dt zone. Best location for affordable housing close to transit, jobs and services
Live oak, Westside industrial area
Corner of market street and water street
Old adolfs
Along the corridors. Water street between Morrissey and n Branciforte ,Soquel avenue between ocean and Morrissey
3 story limits so as to not take light and sun away from adjacent buildings Also downtown and not totally familiar with west side
Along the Raul trail!!!!
Downtown and major transit corridors like mission and the mission extension/delete areas, soquel ave, water street and ocean street and the beach flats. These are already denser areas on transit corridors with easy access to commercial areas.
Along transit corridors, eastside, downtown, westside
Transport corridors
Along transit lines. There should be no automobile parking and instead transit passes provided to residents.
Housing should be along major public transportation corridors Along transportation corridors with appropriate height limitations.
Lower West side is underdeveloped with mostly single family housing. It is a huge waste of space.
Downtown
Westside, especially in relation to the University students Along the main streets and transit corridors
As climate change continues we should recreate our past wetlands and floodplains. We should develop new downtowns in the upper and lower parts of both the Westside and the Eastside.
Development should take place on higher ground and let much of our current downtown return to its natural environment as a wetland. We must completely eliminate parking minimums and allow at least 4 story buildings on every lot in the city if we are serious about tackling our housing shortage.
East side , SoQuel , live oak, pleasure point Santa Cruz mid town Along busy thoroughfares such as Ocean St, Soquel Ave, Mission St., Delaware Ave, Seabright Ave, etc.
Upper westside, mostly. some on lower westside without destroying the beachy feel of the neighborhood. The eastside has been bearing the brunt of housing development. the unique charm of downtown is is danger of destruction by proposed high rises. keep the neighborhoods walkable!
22.112
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Both great parts of westside Mission and eastside Soquel could use and handle development of mixed use with heights greater than 3 stories with commercial on ground, they are both on transit, much better than “walling off” downtown with 7 story monoliths. Whose bone head idea was that? I avoid living downtown because of how often people are yelling there. I have had guys yell at, loudly insult, jump at me, and follow me there. It has also scared my dog to the point I can't take him with me there anymore. I would think building housing more densely there would make the most sense, except I understand other people feeling the same way about not wanting to be harassed so much.
I wonder about developing more housing up in the area of Thurber Ln and Branciforte and certainly around the UCSC campus and up past the Hilltop Apartments.
As a 37-year-old who doesn't want to live with roommates or be married, with a dog, I prefer ADUs.
It would be nice to have more homes to buy, but I think it still seems like a pipedream that houses would be built to the point they would become "affordable." I think it is just the case that more houses would exist that cost the same. The actual apartment buildings in the area seem to be extremely unaffordable.
Downtown
No options should be eliminated, it will also speed up things, without a selection process, all options are options.
No one area should have to take the brunt of extra housing and where’s the water coming from? The City is being ruined by over-development, with no thought about water, traffic, beach access and other quality of life issues. We don not want to become San Jose by the sea! Lower westside
On major corridors ie soquel and water . Ocean. mission street. Find something up the coast a little bit
Downtown needs revival. Westside adu’s for students to be integrated into the community.
Prioritize downtown for general single or elderly renters to create community oriented residential areas and Upper West Side for student renters
Other neighborhoods need multi-generational housing with a mix of unit sizes Most areas of the city could support some future housing but NOT until there is a comprehensive plan for moving people to jobs, recreation, etc. This means separate or separated routes for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. With bicycles going 25 mph or more they cannot be mixed with pedestrians and since everyone eventually walks, that must be given a high priority. Priory must also be given to adding housing in a way that is complimentary to the existing neighborhoods and that means few if any high rise development (over 4-5 stores generally) and setbacks from transportation routes.
Further the city must use citizen oversight committees as done with the water plans and lessen the influence of city planners and the money they waste on plans that go nowhere and always will==wharf plan, east and west side corridor plans, etc. all of which were not desired by the residents of the city.
I’d like to see housing clustered in walkable parts of neighborhoods like midtown and live oak. We need more on Westside around Almar too but traffic on Mission is a problem.
Stop creating market rate housing all over the city! This is just bringing more commuters to Santa Cruz, clogging our roadways and making us an even greater bedroom community for Silicon Valley.
We need low income housing for people who live and work in Santa Cruz County! There should be a height limit on all new development. We pay a lot of money to live in Santa Cruz because we like the small town vibe. We do not want Santa Cruz to become another Silicon Valley mess of urban sprawl
22.113
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
lacking any charm. The city leaders need to consider this with all new developments. They should be six stories or less. They should be created with a visual theme such as Victorian so that our town continues to have charm. Look to downtown Santa Barbara for inspiration. This town required that development follow a theme and the town is quite lovely. Our short-sightedness to not consider the visual appeal of new development is resulting in a loss of charm for our city. This will also result by starting to create skyscraper developments that do not belong in a small beach town.
The Westside just past 711 on Mission. This area is just empty space for 50 miles for the most part downtown but not in environmentally sensitive areas
The city needs to preserve the charm of Santa Cruz. If you turn it into San Jose you will be sacrificing assets for short period of gain. Look to LA and how Victorian neighborhoods, such as along Olympic Blvd, were sacrificed to multistory apartments -and now the whole location is unsavory. Growth is not always the best. You should thwart growth by developers and instead put the power in individual home owners, not corporations. People will build ADUs, if you make that process less complex, and even support it. The story is the city makes it super difficult.
Build multistory student dormitory complex with gondolas to campus somewhere to the East of campus.
Downtown
As close to UCSC as possible, tall and dense housing for students. Also, infill downtown and beach flats with tons of dense cheap housing near bus lines.
UCSC campus
Upper west side, upper east side, and areas close to the ocean could use some low-income housing to bring a more varied demographic to these areas of privilege Downtown and near transit. Rental units should be prioritized near UCSC and Cabrillo.
Soquel corridor; downtown; lower Westside; upper Westside; east side downtown should build up, multi story mixed use, large buildings, it can become a real city Areas w/ single family homes on larger lots close to public transportation and/or grocery stores, etc.
I think they should be in every area. Not just clustered into one area. city owned lots, motels/hotels with little use - allow converson to housing, industrial buildings with little to no use - allow conversion to housing, commercial buildings with little to no use - allow conversion to housing. Where underutilized lots abut existing low-rise or single story housing, insure any new housing development on those lots are limited in height with step backs on 2nd story and above facing existing housing, such that no solar blocking/noise/traffic impacts upon, and no looming building masses impact upon, existing bordering housing.
Westside, off Delaware
Downtown, and major corridors for 3 story apartments.
Asus in residential areas, giving major tax and permit cost breaks. Also, back off on ridiculously restrictive building codes.
Everywhere where transit and mobility options exist.
West side, end of Deleware near Marine Lab. There is empty space there that could accomodate multiple units.
Downtown and the east side corridor
The "outer" areas of the west side (as Mission Street heads towards Western Drive), upper east side, upper west side are all potential areas for housing development, and I am sure there are more.
22.114
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
However, I believe we need to be very careful about "over developing" in the historic downtown area.
Years ago, a lot of community effort went in to envisioning what we wanted our downtown to be like, and I fear that infill housing development of large, multi-story buildings is really not at all the vision that we worked so hard to make a reality. (The same goes for large, multi-story hotels!) There are main bus lines that connect to many areas in our city that are suitable for housing development, and many grocery stores and services are in walking or biking distance as well. The rail/trail also provides quicker walking routes to stores and services on the west side. I do not believe that the downtown area should be our main focus for large, infill development. There are plenty of other appropriate and accessible areas within the city limits.
There should be a lot of opportunity to densify along arterials and in existing mixed-use areas (Bay, Mission on the westside, the area around the UCSC entrance, downtown and south of downtown, along Soquel and Water, Seabright).
Lower west side (south of King and area between Swanton and Fair), lower east side. These areas have some vacant areas, older homes which are most likely not to current codes, and some existing multi family/apartment structures. I realize this may require the accommodation of some zoning law changes
Please plan, design, and build communities and neighbourhoods not just housing. Have a vision. Ask yourself would I want to live here, would I want my parents or children to live here? What will this look like in, 3, 5, 10, 20 years from now. What are the demands on the infrastructure? Stop the development; make what we already have truly affordable….. not Silicon Valley prices. Us local renters are being pushed out.
Downtown- taller buildings already fit in. More walkable and won’t affect traffic as bad Upper Westside- to alleviate already over impacted east side I don't understand this question. Santa Cruz needs more housing, period. Santa Cruz neighbors do everything to slow down construction, so any area is fine. The priority should be housing, the area does not matter, I think.
East side of Santa Cruz but in a controlled manner ..
Downtown
Wherever there is space to build.
Downtown (within reasonable walking distance to public transit and shopping for folks without cars.
Also need major improvements to existing public transportation) Golf course (some folks love it, and I hate to take that away, but it’s a water-waster, and the land could be better used for housing, imo)
Possibly west and north, like towards the Dimeo dump but maybe that’s too sprawl-ly. Also out at the end of Delaware, like by the homeless garden?🤷🤷
west side
Housing development out toward Schaefer Road
Central to down town & public transportation
Downtown, lower west side, empty lots on Soquel Ave or Water Street such as old Ginza restaurant, not being used and is an eye sore.
Harvey west
Single family houses in downtown should be converted into at least multiplexes, preferably apartments.
Upper west side (particularly around Nobel) should be upzoned to allow for dense multiuse development to create a student district near UCSC
22.115
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Areas to be developed should be served by public transit so that commuting to work & shop is feasible
The Greenbelt initiative that was passed in the 70s worked for issues and circumstances 50 years ago but needs to be revisited. Residential neighborhood Development should be considered in the gray whale ranch and more creek preserve, Arana Gulch And pogonip properties.
Corridors Water, Broadway, Downtown, Soquel
Everywhere!
UCSC
Downtown. And any large empty lots where neighbors will not be impacted by loss of sunlight exposure.
West side is convenient for UCSC campus access, but I think if buses were improved that connected the East side to campus then that would also be feasible. wherever there is lower density. it needs to be near transportation and commercial areas and also where there are nearby schools and parks.
I support more mixed-use development downtown. I think the city would benefit from replacing parking with housing and investing more in transit. Curbing sprawl and increasing walkability / transitfriendliness is not only the only environmentally-friendly path forward, it's also beneficial for forming good communities!
Upper west side and the lower west side are good targets for development. That will be attractive for folks associated with the university and boost density
All of them! Put housing everywhere
Downtown, lower Westside
west side needs to take some of the burden of housing development. All seems slated for downtown and eastside so far.
Downtown
Downtown. That area has traditionally multi story apartment buildings. It concentrates those buildings in one area rather than impacting residential neighborhoods with massive high-rise development which is being pushed into the residential neighborhoods because of the "affordable" units that can be added to circumvent restrictions on the height of the buildings. The City of Santa Cruz needs to grow a spine and not be cowed by whiny for-profit developers who claim that the project would otherwise not work for them financially, We MUST see those financial projections - they are never disclosed. We have a right to see those financials as it involves public funding/allowances. You and I both know that we are being brainwashed by these "affordable" housing developers.
Downtown, and upper west side.
West side more density SRO housing along transit throughways close to campus.
Eastside on Soquel Avenue where the car dealerships are. I live here. We can handle affordable apartments here if the buildings aren't massive. Also, Fred Keeley has been researching the lot on Market and Water right behind his house. That project should go forward. Until we have about 2,000 affordable rental units, I don't believe any other for-profit developers should be allowed to build luxury apartments. The county should also finalize its tiny home ordinance updates so people can move forward with tiny home villages on rural properties. There are tons of empty parking lots on the westside where people could be allowed to temporarily park RVs while they rebuild homes destroyed by fire. The city could pay a manager to live there in one.
Housing needs to be developed throughout the city, not one area. As well as the county as a whole!
22.116
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
No over 10 story buildings downtown. It would dramatically change the skyline and take away the feel of low key Santa Cruz. We shouldn't have to change the town under pressure of the Warriors and Tech Companies of downtown. The Westside has several empty areas. UCSC should take some of the brunt of meeting the new housing required by the state. Interspersed through the corridors, mainly Soquel because of the school on Water/B-40.
Lower westside. Along major and medium corridors and near commercial area No.
I would say everywhere but only because I’m not well informed enough to know if any areas need it more.
Vacant lots should be developed first. All parts of the city are feasible.
Lower west side by natural bridges
Areas along existing and future transit routes and bikeways Downtown can certainly be redeveloped to feature taller mixed-purpose buildings (i.e. businesses on the ground floor and affordable apartments on all other floors). I support the in-process construction of apartments that is currently happening on Laurel and Pacific/Front St, and hope to see more buildings like this in the future.
High density SRO at UCSC/Westside - that's where the demand is growing.
Everywhere. Everywhere needs new housing.
Everywhere
Beach flats, towers downtown, charge tourists for the view on the top.
All of them. Build baby build!
everywhere
Throughout the entire county since this current lack of housing impacts all areas of the county.
Downtown, transit corridors, anywhere you see empty parking lots and strip malls, near campus.
I believe it's important to keep parks, existing homes (that are lived in), and small businesses in their place, and not repurpose them into homes.
1/2 mile from all active transportation and transit routes tall apartments should be legalized All neighborhoods should be building more housing. Zoning should be changed so larger buildings can go into SFH neighborhoods. We also need to abolish parking minimums throughout the city - this will also help in building more housing.
Centralized around the main public transit lines and the biggest employment areas to minimize traffic - so downtown/westside for the city and UCSC, Aptos for Cabrillo, the neighborhoods around Dominican Hospital. Also increasing funding and improving public transit should be part of this project.
Upper west side needs more student apartments. Lower east side needs help Because of the severity of the housing shortage anywhere with available lots should be considered.
Because UCSC is at the mercy of statewide housing policy for students, housing along bus routes between the campus and downtown would ease the strain county-wide. (To this effect, if it is possible to revisit the land use agreement for the campus to build more on-site housing, even better) Additionally, affordable units near downtown would be ideal due to the number of service-sector jobs that support our bustling tourism industry! Service staff should be able to live near their jobs, especially since those jobs often don't pay well enough to purchase a reliable vehicle.
Along that same line, denser housing options should be available along public transportation routes, such as the Soquel Ave/Water St. arteries, extending to Trevethan/city limits.
22.117
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
East side of Santa Cruz on the north side of Soquel Ave.
DOWNTOWN! Also around River street between San Lorenzo Lumber and the Tannery (maybe even upstream of there). These are great places that can support much larger buildings and mixed-use.
Everywhere
All areas could use further development. Housing prices are insane, and more housing that supports multiple families and apartments is desperately needed
Downtown should have more high rises. Harvey west seems like it has a lot of potential. Any where there is a surface parking lot should be developed.
The far west side along Delaware Avenue seems to have a lot of open space and it is close to key roads, public transportation and other necessities. There is a stretch along water Street between brands of 40 and Seabright where there Seems to be space, again along a major corridor near public transportation and other necessities.
More commercial based areas, such as downtown and areas around town where there are businesses for dense housing
downtown, upper and lower west side, upper and lower east-side Downtown - it's the most pedestrian area and well served by metro Busy roads- Mission St, Water St, Broadway, Front, Laurel, get UCSC to build housing for more students on or near campus
The artichoke farm for sale in westside could be another multifamily neighbourhood.
All the 1 story businesses on mission or delaware are taking massive space and could be 3-4 story mixed use buildings.
downtown and midtown, anywhere along public transportion routes/hubs west side toward Davenport, San Lorenzo, anywhere there's a camp really Mid town / lower east side along bus lines Soquel and water streets To begin with- downtown, no questions asked. Mixed use development surrounding a dense walkable downtown core would make santa cruz a wonderful place to live. And now, controversially- the west side is an excellent candidate for medium and high density housing in my opinion. So much of the land within it is used by small, low quality single family homes built in the 1970s. Tearing them down and replacing them with mixed use or purely residential developments would be an absolute boon for residents. Imagine living above a coffee shop, or walking directly to a laundromat without having to deal with mission street! Speaking of, mission street should also be considered as a candidate for tall buildings- frankly, there's no 'character' left to 'ruin.' Any changes to it would almost certainly be an improvement.
Skyscrapers providing affordable housing for workers downtown. Mixed-use developments and ADUs in Live Oak and Upper Westside because there is plenty of space for greater development in these areas.
Downtown where there are transit options. The business district could use it too! Rental apartments in upper west side for students. Apartments and mixed-use development at all commerce/employment hubs.
Seabright/East side has a lot of single family homes and sprawling business development that tends to have a lot of vacancies. Business buildings that are vacant may be better used as affordable housing If zoning would permit. It’s also perceived to be a higher income area where more people have summer beach homes that aren’t actually occupied year round and Airbnb’s. the corridors should be dense, dense, dense. they should have active commercial frontages and nodes of gathering spaces/hubs where people can gather to eat/shop/hang out/work.
22.118
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
a) expand downtown, b) build up on corridors, c) build way more dense housing on the far west side Downtown could be utilized so much more, allow mixed use zoning same on the westside. No more urban sprawl build sense and tall affordable housing.
Everywhere
Seabright/midtown & westside along mission
Lower west side has plenty of open space; hotels have been developed there, why not permanent housing. Housing should be spaced evenly around the city, perhaps according to the old transit corridor housing development plan which was shamefully scrapped. Other than that, most neighborhoods could take multiple duplexes, four-plexes. One per block would have a modest impact, and more than that would probably not affect neighborhood life much.
On ucsc’s campus
Mixed use and apartments/condos downtown, 1-3 story apartments/condos lower west side Lower west side - vacant lots off Swift Street. Infill of vacant lots within single family neighborhoods with multiplexes and multi-story housing.
Areas where the majority of workforce are located ie near UCSC, downtown, Live oak Anywhere we have open land!
West side, upper and lower.
Everywhere. We are desperately in need of housing so all areas need to be looked at.
Close to job centers, transit, social/community gathering spaces, and stores. Walkable communities (not super far west in food deserts)
Downtown and Westside. Downtown can probably take higher density and west side has too many single family homes.
Lower west side on Delaware Ave between Almar and Natural Bridges. There are huge vacant lots and it is perfectly placed between all 3 UCSC campuses (CSC, WRP, Residential Campus) and close to restaurants, shops, and bus lines.
Lower west side on mission street. Mission street is poorly planned and needs a major overhaul but if the street becomes safer, increased housing should be placed there.
Seabright along Soquel ave
Delaware Ave., downtown, Mission St., various empty lots in neighborhoods Anywhere
All areas
Downtown. It's close to everything.
Yes, all of the above.
Downtown, Above Downtown near Costco could use heavy upzoning (up to 10 stories), to prevent urban sprawl and be close to public transport & walkable. And any lot where there’s currently a strip mall should be upzoned to mixed-use urban development, lots of potential space.
Downtown and live oak
What about building in the Swanton Road area?
Everywhere
Lower west side.
Upper/Lower Westside, lot of open land use for housing development especially for low income workers in the City.
22.119
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
The circles on the west side
Down town, then expand east and west. New affordable housing needs transportation connections.
I am a Euro who has lived in Asia, Europe, and Australia. I never owned a car till I moved to Santa Cruz. I got my first car at age 30 in Santa Cruz because I could not get to work via public transportation. My first purchase in CA was a bicycle and then the realization set in.
Within .5 miles of transit corridors
Westside should be upzoned
Lower Westside near Delaware, continued in live oak, Davenport (within reason and with respect to coastal preservation)
Both. We need housing for people everywhere in Santa Cruz.
Downtown and along public transportation lines
Downtown, midtown areas
Upper west side.
Busy areas. Front St, River St, Water St, Mission St, Soquel Ave (Drive?), Laural St, Broadway UCSC could do with building some as well
downtown, west side, build in parking lots and convert existing buildings to housing. rezone to allow for housing converted to mixed use/multifamily. focus on sustainable measures (ie. retrofit vs. new shells)
Between Ocean Street and the levee
Downtown
Downtown, soquel/water/midtown
Make sure exclusive neighborhoods are made accessible to everyone by building multi family housing—upper and lower Westside, not just downtown. The entire neighborhood north of High would be very walkable for ucsc students. Make sure to include mixed used in all neighborhoods, so people don’t have to drive to go to the corner store
I think we should build in areas that are unlikely to flood.
Downtown and lower east side. We need more housing, not more traffic. Combine with more transit and protected bike lanes and everyone wins.
Everywhere. Seriously. Build new housing absolutely everywhere. Build it in my backyard (Carbonera).
Especially Downtown given transit options, but I think Westside, Lower East Side and Downtown provide best options given transit and walkability, but you could still build a ton of smaller apartments in the upper east side, bananna belt, some larger townhomes in Carbonera. never going to hit the goals if you don't build everywhere.
UCSC staff and students— to unburden the shortage ripples that occur in the rest of the community.
Next should be new affordable units in Aptos and Capitola. Create new housing in areas near Cabrillo/surrounding and anticipate it will lower commute times for other people needing to commute to/from outer county areas.
Capitols or Scotts valley
Downtown, SoLa, NOLO. Build dense housing because close to transit. 1000s of new residents will revitalize downtown businesses and we can have local-serving business.
Also: give tax breaks to downtown property owners who rent to local businesses.
Close to public transit--downtown/midtown.
Everywhere
22.120
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Base of campus, lower westside
Downtown.
near kaiser arena - that area would be perfect for a large 10+ story development Literally anywhere
Any empty lot. Theres not many opportunities so all need to be maximized.
Lower Westside (my neighborhood) with additional bus service.
Everywhere
Downtown, lower east side, lower west side. All have opportunities to re zone some lots, expand others, and build ADUs.
Downtown, lower west side (near Wrigley, Toadal Fitness), along corridors I think there are opportunities to add more housing on both sides of town. The east side needs some renovation which could include more apartments, and duplexes. We need to provide affordable housing for our workforce.
All parts, but especially re-zoning any single-family plots.
Downtown near transportation hubs and the west side near the University Lower west of the west side (mixed use near the west end), definitely downtown, definitely just east of the river, definitely large mixed use near Capitola mall UCSC for students
Everywhere, but especially close to transit.
Lower westside. I currently live there and feel that the area is ideal for development as it safe and out of the way.
everywhere! The most demand for renting is definitely on westside and not being met (1) UCSC on-campus housing. Because they have the land and it would minimize traffic to/from UCSC.
(2) Downtown. Because it has a bus transit hub and portions offer good redevelopment opportunities.
multi-family/duplex allowed on any lot over 60x100
Heavily downtown and near the rail line. Moderately elsewhere. - As close to UCSC as possible. Students need housing close to campus - midtown
Aptos watsonville santa cruz capitola
Everywhere. We have a large RHNA allocation so it's best to build as much as we can, everywhere we can.
Along major corridors like Soquel, Water, Mission, and downtown, as well as adjacent to UCSC.
Vacant lots, vacant parcels, vacant UC campus land...inventory vacant locations and evaluate for feasability and appropriate housing development
Downtown and west side. Some close to the downtown for convenience of markets (and places of work) and close to UCSC for the students who want housing.
West side
Everywhere and anywhere EXCEPT down town. What we build down town will not survive the sea level rising. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take climate change seriously, and build for the future, not just the next twenty or thirty years. If that.
I think every neighborhood should have more housing/development
22.121
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Upper/lower east and west sides.
With wise urban design that focusses on walkable communities and access to public transit (5-15 minute walk from BUS lines AND future RAIL), we should be building all along these corridors. We also need to build mix use so that people do not need to drive to get their basics like groceries, a nice meal in a small restaurant, etc. We need to change zoning so that we are building dense little villages near transit so people have easy access to shift away from cars for local needs. downtown, lower westside along Mission, Eastside along corridors: larger parcel sizes will allow greater density.
Dependence on construction of ADUs will not provide the units needed because that would require property owners to subsidize construction on lots where such units can feasibly be built. A neighbor built an ADU in my neighborhood with the hope that she could charge an affordable rent, but the construction costs were so high that she found that she had to charge market rate rent to cover her loans! To me, this means that ADUs will not address affordability issues in this area.
This should be a holistic approach and all areas of the city should be looked at. That way we all fulfill the need and not just specific areas. Looking at things as a whole would net more available space instead of picking certain neighborhoods. We could also look at empty retail spaces that have sat empty for a long time and see what could be done with it.
Both West side and east side. Lots of single family homes, not enough rentals.
Next to public transit and other public services including markets...
Near transit or future transit & cycling corridors (Rail trail, Soquel Ave, Broadway, Bay St), West side (industrial/commercial areas), densifying the UCSC/Bay St area, East Side lower west side, downtown, ocean st area
Transportation corridors
ADU’s everywhere but the City would need to quit requiring ridiculous, arbitrary deterrents like builder must replace the city owned alley, or be restricted to 10’ setbacks if the front door is on the the side but only 5’ if it’s on an alley, etc.
West side Delaware project that seems to have been abandoned.
Housing development should be infill. Rezoning should happen for previously disturbed blocks (like industrial area on Westside) to build high density affordable housing. We don’t need luxury housing built by private developers. We need social, public housing.
We don’t need to build housing on open space that has high ecological value, like UCSC plans to do.
All development should be infill at this point. There is enough space for nature and buildings. The choice between nature and housing is a false dichotomy.
Every time you entertain the idea of a new hotel (Laurel & Front comes to mind) think about how much better affordable housing would be for our town.
Everywhere, but particularly in the downzoned wealthy neighborhoods, because this will help break our anti-density culture.
Everyywhere
More student housing near the campus and throughout the Westside.
Mission St/Hwy 1 Corridor on the West side. I'm a west side resident and am tired of the Nimbyism on the East side. I think starting infill development on this transit corridor, supported by interconnected active transportation routes would be a great addition to the west side and would provide a great example of the benefits on a well thought out, integrated sustainable/smart growth/compact development as called for by the general plan.
22.122
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 2: Recommended Areas for Residential Development
Corridors everywhere!
22.123
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz More transit, more transit oriented development, increased density with taller buildings for housing and a mix of all housing types.
Housing environment where sale and rental prices are achievable to a wider spectrum of people.
Corridors. Downtown
Santa Cruz could become a walkable paradise that is truly welcoming to all incomes. anything that is NOT on the corner of Branceforte and Water St.
Current and future residents of Santa Cruz will have access to a wide range of safe, affordable, and secure housing.
Abundant choices for residents of all backgrounds and income levels High density housing since we have little land available.
Please do a downtown wide EIR and specific plan EIRs for smaller areas and then create a matrix of non-subjective practical design standards that then allow for projects to be approved at a staff level.
Commit to having projects approved in 6 months from the date of a preliminary submittal.
A range of housing types available to households across all incomes and ages.
With such high demand the quickest solution is to provide multi-family housing.
We can't go out into our natural areas, so we must go up with taller buildings so people have homes. dense, walkable, transit-oriented development located close to amenities, jobs, and institutions (i.e.
UCSC, downtown, boardwalk).
Hopefully it's better for the UCSC students for the future I envision mixed high density development that is centered around reliable public transport like the train and buses.
more housing in general. more incentives for developers to develop. more accessibility for housing for students
Single family neighborhoods rezoned for duplexes/triplexes. Downtown parking-lots rezoned for affordable apartments and condos. Rent caps in low income neighborhoods Dense, walkable urban core; abolish SFH; mixed use neighborhoods; no more unhoused; apartments for UCSC students; children of locals can afford to buy a home Housing should be easily accessible and affordable at ALL income levels. Housing should be offered with a good mix of 9-month and 12-month leases to support students while also not pushing out the working class.
More housing for people of all income levels, with denser multi-family housing in every neighborhood; with no required parking for more walkable, bikeable neighborhoods.
Make sure UCSC builds housing to house all 19,000 + students. Build 100% affordable housing rentals for low and very low income with state & federal dollars. The city staff should spend their time applying for grants to contribute to projects so no project will be over 4 stories high. Improve the bus system.
My vision would be safe places for people to live (the streets/cars are not safe) Small scale additional housing units located in existing residential neighborhoods (specifically including the upper Westside) making use of ADU/SB 9. NO mixed use high rises.
Every area of the City should be upzoned to promote new diverse housing types.
Denser multi-use developments in which people need not drive.
A more welcoming downtown with community open/green space and greater residential density.
22.124
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz You have to make it easier for people to build without permitting and developments costs making affordability nearly impossible. Many of the fees charged are barriers to development. The endless litigation when someone does want to do a project is also problematic.
This survey would have been FAR more useful if data were provided on the demographics of those in need of housing. If you don't have that data, it should be generated. It is unfair to ask residents to prioritize assistance to certain groups (seniors, unhoused etc) without the relevant data.
Furthermore, there are existing zoning regulations that would make some development far more feasible than others. It is a complex issue and warrants a more thoughtful approach.
We need housing development of all types and we need it yesterday. A critical component of housing development is the development of protected bike lanes on our key corridors so that short local trips can be done safely by bike. The Class II painted bike lanes are not enough to keep people safe and encourage bicycling.
1) Adhere to parking study, 2) little new housing/parking downtown (tourists don't want to see), and 3) MORE HOUSING ALONG ENTIRE PLANNED (LIGHT) RAIL LINE.
I see a Santa Cruz where the people who work here can afford to live here. I see a place where property crimes are not tolerated as they are now so that people can better enjoy their homes. I see motels and hotels being converted to housing, putting the needs of residents ahead of visitors and moneymaking.
Mixed-use, medium-high density, affordable, with minimal concessions to parking and regressive land use
I think it's important for new housing and development in Santa Cruz to thoroughly look at the city's and its residents water and electricity needs. As Santa Cruz moves to green light more developments, there needs to be an emphasis on using new and emerging technologies so that our growing population uses water and electricity in the most efficient ways possible. Gray water systems, solar panels, and battery storage should be mandatory. The city also needs to fully take into account where housing will be the most effective to keep people out of their cars, as the city's transportation infrastructure is already at capacity.
Affordable, well-maintained, attainable, purchaseable by individuals, not dense A place where those who want safe homes can find them
Greater housing stock citywide for every income bracket (including intensified housing within SFD areas with ADUs & townhome opps)
Stay out of residential neighborhoods with your high-rise atrocities! Plenty of room along Ocean Street and Mission St commercial zones.
Modest housing to support retail, education, service workers, and government employees. Lowered UC consumption. Density. Honesty.
Get the homeless off the streets and out of parks. We pay so much to live here but the city is a landfill from these people.
We need to address the housing situation using all available means including zoning changes and rent control. We need to work with neighbors to avoid battles about viable project - suggest including neighbors EARLY in the design process
I believe that developers and city leaders are the ones most benefiting from all new housing projects proposed and in process of development. It is a lose lose situation for people that cannot afford homes over $1 mil. People with up to $200k a year income cant get ahead and the housing problem will only exponentially progress without making it worthwhile for those who can’t afford this housing market. We need housing that can be beneficial to lower income owners. A person buying a $1.6 mil home will be investing in that property with nothing to lose as the property holds precious value.
22.125
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Lower income individuals need access to investment in property value which does not happen in rental situations or with ridiculous HOA or so called low income housing buying assistance that actually makes buyers stuck unable to sell and unable to make any profit from their sale.
Mixed-use housing near transit stops to allow for folks to not need cars and easily access their needs.
Affordable for all people, focusing on lower income, not the wealthy.
Density where it can exist. Missing middle elsewhere.
More of it! For decades Our community viewed housing as a plague and an environmental blight. This needs to change!
Housing is desperately needed
Every household, regardless of income, has access to choices about what type of housing and what neighborhood they live in.
dense and diverse
More small rentals
Dense, mixed-use development along transit corridors - more housing at all levels.
Mixed types of housing in all neighborhoods. Green and visually suited to the neighborhood they are in.
abundant, dense multi-family housing for people at all income levels that is accessible to public transportation
Transit-oriented development, mixed zoning, multi-family, no one unhoused.
A town where people can run their errands on foot or by bicycle, and cars no longer take up half the space in the town. A town with a lively, thriving downtown and interesting neighborhoods. A town served by regular train service.
Please just build more units and don't let established homeowners continue their nitpicking, NIMBYism, and perpetual gridlock.
Walkable neighborhoods with dense housing for mixed income levels (a solid portion low income).
Pedestrian paths, bike lanes, and public transit throughout to provide accessible transportation to community services and shops.
Multifamily housing both market rate and affordable allowed on infill sites and on large single family lots, rezone unused industrially zoned land especially on west side to allow multifamily Convert under utilized commercial space to housing
Allows our kids to live in Santa Cruz by growing the housing stock.
I would like to see supportive housing that goes away over time. Should be hand up not lifelong I'd like SC to have a variety of housing available that helps teachers, restaurant workers, city employees etc. live close to where they work without having to spend all their income on rent.
Stop cramming people in. Incremental development at human scale. Community-led design. Retain neighborhood integrity. Push back against RHNA numbers! A lot denser housing environment with protected bikeways throughout the city. healthy, sanitary, airy, garden-like, with open space, human-scale More equitable. Build enough affordable housing so that the property values decrease and the middle class will be able to purchase homes again.
Land trusts. 50% of housing off the speculative market. Free to move (unlike rent control). Affordable.
Imaginative. Different.
Sufficient rentals at a variety of prices. Dense mixed-use development Downtown and along commercial thoroughfares. Entry points for homebuyers.
22.126
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz AFFORDABLE, FAIR, ACCESSIBLE HOUSING FOR CITY RESIDENTS MUST BE A PRIORITY. MAKING "SENIOR" 55+ NOT 65+
More affordable with less focus on single-family homes. students have affordable housing and less homeless
Reduce barriers to constructing housing. More housing means lower prices for everyone.
Housing for families who live and work in Santa Cruz should be a priority. I don’t like seeing all these multi story buildings with SROs that will be rented to UCSC students. The university needs to figure out their housing problems and not expect the city to house such a large percentage of their student population.
Need more affordable housing in the city core, or next to transit centers. More mixed-uses to include all types of housing.
A mix of all levels - no more than 20% of housing should be for ultra-low income. Single family homes still have a place in society.
Dense, abundant, affordable housing for all income levels in bikeable and walkable 15 minute communities
A place where students aren’t paying extreme prices and aren’t homeless or living in cars.
I believe co-op housing will be the future.
higher density along transit corridors and a variety of housing types available in neighborhoods to promote diversity of residents
High density housing Downtown, more housing along major road corridors, bike paths and trains.
Affordable housing prioritizing racial equity and Housing-First approaches to homelessness.
More for less
Most, if not all, new dwelling units should be in multifamily, multi-story rental housing projects. As many as possible should be public housing projects and non-profit Housing developments.
Infill development and density increases in residential neighborhoods, Soquel/Water/Mission corridors. Modest development downtown. Prioritize safe commuting by bike and by foot. Decrease vehicle speeds.
Housing where my children who were born here can come back and raise a family. Multi-generational housing in the low density zones, and apartments along the transit corridors. 15 minute neighborhoods. Limit short term rentals.
Higher population density without adequate infrastructure and natural resources.
No buildings above seven stories. Attractive buildings like the Calypso (better architecture) less density and more building on west side industrial area.
Affordable housing for those struggling with homelessness and mental illness, which would benefit our local economy and EVERYTHING ELSE.
All new housing is guaranteed for EXISTING SC residents. Mandate UCSC to house all students admitted. Allocate housing for working residents in need who support economy - house cleaners, food industry workers, retail/food sale cashiers/workers, public workers. Beautiful multi story buildings with shops/restaurants/bars downtown. Limit tall developments in existing neighborhoods to 2 story, so none is negatively impacted. Remove housing from parks and open spaces, no camping, no shelters. Build an actual shelter for mentally ill, rehab for drug addicts and low level security for law breakers, include homeless shelter in plan.
Dense, multifamily developments along transit corridors to reduce car-dependency and promote walkable neighborhoods.
22.127
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz The ideal - Intermixed single and multi-family living spaces with shared common areas, village like.
Also, areas of apartments with open spaces and retail establishments.
Affordable, functional housing available for sale for citizens who have no generational wealth Not very good. The affordable component (O) for privately funded projects has killed all insensitive to build any affordable middle income housing!
Respectful development protecting how special Santa Cruz is(was). No special advantage to outside developers.
Pull the reigns back on building. I know Lee Butler is all in on build baby build but it's still not that easy to build an ADU here. The Planning Dept spent big bucks to develop build ready plans in the beginning but look at them! Have a dozen sets of plans available that are build ready, so people don't have to deal with the disfunction of the now plan check process at the City. Have a staff person down there that is familiar with water and fire requirements pertaining to water pressure and fire sprinklers to let a homeowner know what exactly they can build pertaining to an ADU. more public low-income housing to hold back the gentrification of bay area money A community that cares for its own, including the developmentally disabled and elderly.
More Section 8, and affordable housing available near Metro lines and schools. Fewer luxury or Swift/Curry developments. Few buildings over 3 stories tall. Don't turn SC into SJC.
I hope that there’s more homes for people.
More affordable housing for all disadvantage groups of people who have been experiencing financial and medical challenges.
Farm workers
Unaffordable forcing many to move away. I don’t see help for special needs people I would like to see more support for residence who own property. Put in place laws that support landlords as much renters. Our city cannot support these huge developments being put in downtown.
Landlords would be more willing to rent out their properties if we felt that we would not lose control of our property. You would have more rentals on the market. I am afraid to rent to anyone other than family.
Decreased permitting costs, reduced setbacks and downtown housing density.
In the future, individuals with disabilities who are unable to have a regular income, would have access to housing supported by a program which would allow for in home support, while enabling the individual to choose where to live. In other words, ample housing choices with Section 8 being prioritized to those with physical and developmental disabilities. We have to wait years and are still waiting to receive Section 8 for my son.
More accessible information regarding upcoming housing developments Provide affordable housing for low income homeless and disabled Sufficient housing: affordable, aspirational, and neighborhood integrity.
I would like my city to be a place where dense walkable neighborhoods filled with mixed types of housing is the norm and applauded. I believe the housing nexus is crucial to a vibrant community, a more climate friendly community and a place with ALL types of housing.
Affordable, green, inclusive
Building is excessive for our City. Petition Sacramento lawmakers to reevaluate our housing quotas.
A glorious mix of housing. Particularly lots of apartment buildings along Soquel in inner Santa Cruz Don't punish homeowners (ie empty home tax). Encourage homeowners with inexpensive options to provide ADUs or convert a big home to multi-use.
22.128
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Infill with tiny homes, studios, and such, esp on large homes with larger properties.
Cooperative housing.
Scale needed and wanted developments to a neighborhood, unlike 831. Developers working WITH neighborhoods to identify infill possibilities.
To maintain community there needs to be housing for all income levels Decent, affordable housing for all, in safe, family friendly neighborhoods I don’t think people should get to live here just because they want to - would rather focus on people with jobs and families in town, to keep them employed and supported.
Provide more affordable and very affordable housing to help those in need and to give them a chance Multi-story density in areas near transit corridors and more adu and duplex/triplex I’m residential neighborhoods.
Mixed use dense development along transportation corridors, ADUs, duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods
Dense high-rise growth along transport corridors.
walkable neighborhoods. fewer automobiles. car free side streets. on street parking replaced by protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks.
Build more multifamily housing at the urban center
Maximize the available opportunities for various segments of the community so that spirit and culture of Santa Cruz is enhanced.
Low rise with unit based rent control and just cause eviction.
More housing development similar to Pacific Station South, North, and the Library Affordable Housing project. More for sale opportunities/less rentals for low income earners with priority to BIPOC who have been left out of generational opportunities for home ownership and building equity.
Publicly owned and managed, rent controlled, abundant social housing. No parking minimums.
Walkable.
Affordable!!!!
Abundant housing for a variety of income groups and household sizes.
Walkable, low rise village model of neighborhoods containing variety of housing mixed with locally owned commercial spaces for shopping and dining.
Housing solutions should not all be solved downtown. Westside and eastside have areas that could benefit from mixed use developments. Townhouses, condos, work well out in the neighborhoods can be more affordable than houses. Stronger leadership must be made with UC to take responsibility for housing students, staff and instructors.
Developing more affordable housing. I have the great benefit of living in affordable housing--it is what enables me to continue to live in Santa Cruz and contribute to benefit of my community.
For me personally, I don't want to have to be so anxious trying to find housing as a single adult with a dog. I received a 60 day notice on the house where I rent and the situation is such that I don't know if I will be able to continue to live and work in Santa Cruz. I have been living in Santa Cruz for over 8 years and used to work for the county. It seems rent has come close to doubling since I moved here. It would be nice to be able to buy a house in this county eventually, but a more immediate and urgent goal is being able to afford a rental that will allow a dog. I am suspect of wealth in real estate being concentrated with individuals and companies purchasing many houses and selling them for more or charging high rent so people whose jobs are needed in the community can't afford to live here.
Many inland folks want to live by the coast. Housing here will always be expensive.
22.129
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Sustainable, affordable, equal housing, of all kinds. Community maintenance and support in all areas.
Complete update of municipal utilities also.
No high rise housing! No housing the can’t be supported by our limited water supplies.
Santa Cruz is over-crowded, and growth should not be encouraged. No to SJ by the sea! Easier ADU rules
Do not build any more housing until you’ve secured infrastructure needs. The roads are still impacted after years of waiting for relief, the train will do very little if anything to solve this problem and our water supply is limited. It’s a no brainer. You wouldn’t run a household like the city has been running our community. Stuffing huge largely unaffordable apartments for the majority of our population (50% are renters according to survey) into a small downtown area. There are few high paying jobs in this community forcing many more to commute over the hill to afford our outrageous prices for rentals and purchasing. Finally give up the money the state sends us. Does Carmel stuff dense housing into their community?
Not everyone can live here and we should stop trying to house people from other places that came here to live off our services on the street. get the temporary shelter and beds so everyone is off the street. If you offer it they cant sleep on the street or park or my yard. UCSC needs to house most of their students
Housing should be a balance of high density on traffic corridors and in the downtown area with adu’s integrating renters into westside neighborhoods. By supporting more adu’s, homeowners can afford their homes and supervise and maintain their rental adu’s on their own property.
Streamlined systems and processes to spend housing-related money wisely Protect the quality of life in Santa Cruz. Slow growth and allow the current residents of the city to guide development, not city planners or developers
Clustered multilevel affordable housing available to buy and rent spread throughout Santa Cruz neighborhoods. I’m NOT interested in market rate housing at this time. We want working families to stay and put down roots.
Developing low income housing for those who live and work in Santa Cruz County that is six stories or less and has a visual thematic appeal to our beach town vibe. Please stop selling out our charming community to the profiteering of developers.
A housing market where every person can find reasonable priced housing and have an opportunity to have a place to live.
more lower income and special needs, slow overall growth, environmentally sensitive, improve traffic The city needs to take control from the developers. We need to preserve Santa Cruz's assets, one if which is the Victorian architecture. It would be wise for the city to require all structures over 3 floors to fit into a stylized format, much like Santa Barbara. A mission style or Victorian style would make new development at least blend into the community, and with luck, might even create new building treasures that will be admired 100 years into the future. The development at 154 W Cliff Dr next to the Three Sisters Inn is in my mind one of the best examples of excellent building. That structure will be admired, painted, and thought of something to be photographed by future visitors -and it is just a housing structure. Why not require these mega-developers to meet similar requirements? At least make our city continue to look nice, if you are required by law to over develop it. That's also my perspective, we are overdeveloping, not everyone can live wherever they wish, or almost all of the US would move to Hawaii.
Multi-use with affordable housing development encouraged near the river on both sides.
ADU additions on single family lots
22.130
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Make Pacific Ave look like Santana Row. For a start, all council members and planning department personnel should visit Santa Row. It is only a short drive away.
Solve the rental problem by building an off campus multistory dormitory complex for UCSC students perhaps with gondolas to campus.
Building no more than 3 stories with plenty of open space for light and air circulation. No large concrete blocks.
Keep single family neighborhoods and increase density downtown.
Ensure that college students have plenty of options of live in buildings and neighborhoods with other students and not mixed in with families and seniors, ensure families can easily bring in pre-built ADUs or have ADUs built to house extended family as needed, and seek out opportunities to tear down single-family houses in bad shape on big lots/in rows together to build more affordable townhouses for teachers, firefighters, and police officers right in the City.
Solve the infrastructure Problem first, adequate water and traffic issues cannot support 3700+ new units!
If I wanted to live in San Jose I would move there.
The whole state needs to provide asylum and treatment for drug addicts and mentally unhealthy people so they aren't living outside. Homeless people camping in public places who are unwilling to take advantage of offered help should not be tolerated. Young people, especially those with families and those who grew up here, need affordable homes. The permit process and codes for new buildings need to be made cheaper and easier and more rational.
Vibrant, bikeable, walkable and dense downtown with public squares and space. A usable riverfront. function, affordable, beauty but were will we get the water? Accessibility for mid to low income residents
Downtown becomes an actual city. High rise mixed use housing/retail, fill in all the blank and low developed spots. Parking underground. Water cistern storage on every property.
Affordable, accessible, community-facing/enhancing housing, flexible to meet need (e.g., readily adapted to meet needs of residents, e.g., smaller units that can be linked to accommodate larger family/co-housing group)
To see younger families actually be able to live in Santa Cruz and not get overwhelmed with debt and anxiety when trying to find a place to live.
Build 90% extremely low, very low, and low income housing units, 10% market rate units. Flip the formula.
off-street parking, smaller functional homes/apartments I would like to see tiny homes approved on land/property in city and county.
Stronger tenants rights laws that balance the power of landholders and renters Santa Cruz is a tourist and service oriented town. It cannot survive without room for the working class. Second residence homes, airbnbs, should be illegal or discouraged by tax policy. UCSC should be compelled and supported to create on campus housing to free up in city units for service workers. robust housing in the downtown area; robust housing for UCSC both students and employees; robust housing adjacent transit.
low cost multifamily housing units.
More rental along the transportation corridors
A community where people who work here can afford to live here, the housing needs of low income families are met, and UCSC provides much more on-campus housing.
22.131
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz More density, more walkable, more mixed-use.
Dense affordable housing in defined areas, with emphasis on helping seniors/working families, as opposed to throwing more $ at homelessness
Commensurate with income and providing quality of life settings. Again, building communities and thriving neighborhoods not just housing.
See prior comment
Well planned development in very urban areas and preserved neighborhoods and there character More housing. There is a ton of space in Santa Cruz, it's just not used or used poorly. More people will bring in more money, more kids and some new dynamic to an aging city dominated by UCSC.
Controlled growth with mixed family and senior housing. Preserving green space.
Clearly two groups should take priority:
1. Low and medium employed persons working in Santa Cruz
2. A segment of the homeless population that would qualify (disabled, drug-free, and/or simply poor) i live in a trailer court which i bought under rent control . the city gave our homes to a developer barry swenson who did not like rent control. when the lease expires in my 80s i will be homeless in a tent. i am so crippled now that to get out of a chair will be a struggle. Santa Cruz will be roofs for the rich and very rich tents for the rest. my friend just got a $400 rent raise. she, husband and child moved to Florida. Friend’s grown kids in Texas and Idaho.
Affordable housing for UCSC staff. I recently had to move away while still working at UCSC for a cheaper housing. For the same price of a single room in a 6 bedroom house (with modified bedrooms for more space. 3 rooms were actual bedrooms) I am renting a 2 bedroom apartment in Santa Clara.
Abundant housing to accommodate all, especially service workers who support our major industry (tourism). Make UCSC do it’s share to accommodate its students.
Larger multi-story transitional/supportive space for unhoused persons; condos/apartments for students.
This topic has been tossed around for at least two decades. Talked about and talked about with little to no action. Forming committees does not build or create housing. The situation with students, the University should render this one of their main priorities,...stop admitting more students than they can house, for starters.
Sustainable housing for the community designed to lower carbon footprint & close access to public amenities
Higher density downtown but with 3-6 stories instead of high rises. More housing such as live/work spaces on lower west side, also with up to 6 story buildings. More housing on corridors as businesses change, mixed use with retail on ground floor, 3-4 stories. More low income senior housing with some services (transportation, meals, etc), more people able to transition from homelessness into permanent housing.
Provide some safe affordable housing for workers and a manageable finite number of homeless build massive amounts of housing as quickly as possible, especially downtown and near UCSC Sufficient and diverse housing options to meet demand for residents of all ages, incomes & circumstances
We need to build all categories of housing. Especially residential neighborhoods.
Planning department waiving all permitting fees, affordable housing means affordable building for homeowners too-lessen restrictive measures that hinder building homeowners to build multi-family and ADU's.
More mixed use housing… with apartments over commercial space.
22.132
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Help for the unhoused in a humane fashion, off City sidewalks and streets Build 100% affordable housing without changing the character of Santa Cruz.
More affordable housing
housing that fits the city's income spectrum. more low income housing for families, seniors. more coops Building for higher density, walkability, transit-friendliness. More affordable housing. Accountability for abusive landlords.
Dense enough to support car-free lifestyles and allow folks to stay long term.
Fewer landlords with more than a couple of properties, more protection for tenants, and no empty houses.
Enough units to provide a housing-first solution to homelessness. Green construction to minimize new units' dependence on fossil fuels. Rent-controlled units available for students.
A city that is affordable/accessible to multiracial low and middle income residents, seniors and disabled folks.
Housing that is TRULY affordable for all people who work/have worked in Santa Cruz (including tourist industry workers, transitional housing for homeless, seniors).
Affordable housing only with LEED certified buildings that meet the values and aesthetic of Santa Cruz.
More rentals at affordable rates are needed (perhaps bring back conversation around rent control).
Early educators who do not make a living wage, and do make it so our local economy flows, need affordable housing.
Property developed for people to live in who are employed and working in Santa Cruz.
Deed restricted or otherwise controlled
Housing priority is given to Santa Cruz residents and people who work in Santa Cruz. There is an ample supply of affordable rentals and housing to own. Low interest loans are available to people working in public service in Santa Cruz.
More available affordable housing, rental and owned, for young families with good access to employment, schools and transit.
People off the streets. Affordable housing for all and landlords held responsible for keeping their units clean and habitable.
Housing for the unhoused. Homeless communities are not all "drug addicts" and just need of a safe place to live.
Expand downtown and underused commercial space. Leave single family neighborhoods alone.
Get the unhorsed off the street
Santa Cruz should try to maintain the ambiance of a small downtown but infill areas surrounding with housing for low wage earners. This has the benefit of allowing workers to live near jobs, reducing traffic on the roads as people have to commute in from less expensive areas. Don't create opportunities for more high income renters to move to Santa Cruz which creates more imbalance of who can afford to live here.
We need to house the people who work here. Salaries are never going to keep up with rent if real estate investors are allowed to profit from rents. That's old fashioned thinking.
Affordable for all ages, combination of housing types, use of green technology, connect to public transit, accommodate ev powered bikes/cars.
Not overdeveloped with too much packed-in housing. Make building fit the character of Santa Cruz.
Preserve our small town culture. We are not Silicon Valley.
22.133
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Diverse housing options everywhere to foster a diverse and inclusive community.
Continue with reasonable development of townhomes and ease the ability to built ADUs. Do not change the character of the town by building large apartment complexes, especially in single family neighborhoods.
More multi story housings units and apartment complexes, most big complexes I’ve seen near UCSC campus are one story which hardly makes sense. Build up! Multi-story multi-use (shops/offices below, housing above) in areas like downtown. Townhomes or ADUs in places like East side and West side.
Affordable
Provide abundant, well maintained social housing by buying existing apartment complexes and building new ones
I envision a city where there are more than enough affordable units to meet the needs of the community.
No one without a home.
Dense and crowded is not QOL. Denser is not cheaper. Ask SF.
There just needs to be MORE housing in general. Let the university build more dorms and apartments for students, have more multistory apartment buildings. Type of housing matters less than quantity To own property in the town I was born in...
Let's be real, it's unachievable.
Moderately dense city with minimal single family housing. Duplexes, triplexes, condos, townhouses, and mixed-use development line the streets. There are minimal to no setbacks so as to stop wasting valuable land.
A place where everyone is welcomed and homed. A place where I feel secure to invest my future inheritance from the coming housing crash. A place that has a unique and weird character.
Build more housing period. The logjam of a project having to meet very narrow, and often economically unfeasible, criteria prevents us from moving forward.
Build up not out. Subsidize landlords so rent goes down.
It’s time we build some legitimately tall buildings.
Get rid of zoning, build dense, walkable, mixed use developments with public transit Enough supply to support long-term residents, students, and tourist rentals. Apartment/condo buildings that aesthetically fit into our communities.
create affordable housing so those of us who work in Santa Cruz stop getting priced out of living in Santa Cruz
More density, allow more mixed development in SFH areas, act with urgency that matches the scale of the crisis.
Prioritizing permanent or long standing members of the community who have families, ties, and live and work here.
Abundant and accessible. Transit oriented
It is incredibly hard to build in Santa Cruz. The zoning needs to be simplified and things like parking minimums should be abolished to make it faster and cheaper to build. We also need community involvement. We need supportive shelters for the unhoused and more student housing on campus.
We also need PUBLIC housing so it’s not just a few landlords and developers profiting off our public lands. When thinking about building in neighborhoods like south of Laurel, the existing low income neighbors need to be guaranteed housing during and after construction. We can’t just give away land to developers for stadiums and luxury hotels, we need this to go into the people that already live
22.134
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz here. If Kaiser/the Warriors want a stadium they should be stepping up to provide affordable housing at the same time.
Affordable housing for the service workers this area relies on.
Build up. Provide student housing closer to the college. Fix the flats It being feasible for those who work in Santa Cruz to live in the city.
Equitable opportunity for all income brackets and greater public transportation options which reduces congestion and pollution.
Plentiful, variety of prices, for sale and for rent, allow students to live in reasonable housing and not forced to share bedrooms
Higher density housing near places of work, the university, and main transit routes.
Much denser in the "urban" cores where there's significant commercial activity. Also, make it a lot easier for UCSC to build on-campus. A big part of our housing crunch is a constantly growing student population, and it's not their fault that the university keeps getting sued whenever they want to build.
More of it
Walkable, accessible, multifamily multi-unit housing and support programs that build community and support everyone.
More affordable housing options to support lower incomes More high rises, no height limits especially downtown. Removal of zoning restrictions, allowing denser development. More mixed use.
Having a Range of housing stock that is well integrated into the existing community in terms of better utilizing space near services.
Dense mixed use housing
densify housing opportunities where transportation infrastructure is already in place. create more rental space to accommodate students. add multifamily units in single family neighborhoods Walkable/bikeable neighborhoods with green space. Development concentrated to already developed areas to preserve undeveloped lands for wildlife and environment Increased density in all neighborhoods, I'm ok with taller buildings downtown.
Affordable units mixed in with market rate units is very important Reduce the use of ADUs that only increase the price of housing further.
Rent control is vital.
Need more mixed income apartments and small single family homes without HOA or age restrictions.
Prioritize those who work in Santa Cruz over those over the hill. more affordable high-density housing downtown, more UCSC-designated housing close to campus, and not developing neighborhoods that can't handle increased traffic. building along bus routes, aka high-density housing downtown and along mission
end the nimby stranglehold. provide housing so we don't have to be unsafe walking to jury duty, tbh.
Criminals should live in jail. Then it will be easier to help the rest of the homeless population High density, mixed use, tall buildings. In my back yard. Infill development now! Far more transitional housing, and urban development of affordable housing. I hope to be able to live downtown on a teacher’s salary.
Enough housing to place people immediately in decent housing who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
All people who work here can afford to live within walking distance of their job.
22.135
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Landlords held accountable for price gauging, harassment of tenants and property neglect, less racism in housing opportunity, broader section 8 acceptance and more housing options for those with disabilities
A community that prioritizes housing our neighbors by building for students, seniors and families at all income levels.
Santa Cruz is growing in size and I think the idea of it being this cute, little beach community is going to have to change. the town is growing into a city and has easily become a major part of the bay area. increase public transport, build up with shopping on the ground level. make many small areas of concentration, scattered throughout the community. if people's needs are met within a short distance, downstairs or across the street, that is going to create less auto traffic and increase jobs for that micro community.
Every building is owned by the people who live in it or by the state Make more big housing units
catch up on 40 years of preventing housing supply, significantly exceed the minimum RHNA targets for development at all income levels
Santa Cruz is a college town and no longer a bedroom town like it was in 1960 before the UC was built, accept your role.
More housing, less development restrictions
Thoughtful density around commercial and transit corridors in order to a lively walkable/bike-friendly city
Evenly-distributed higher-density housing, not concentrations of it in one or two neighborhoods.
Affordability of home buying for locals, educators and single moms to own a home!! More construction of affordable apartments/condos and ADUs Remove exclusionary zoning and parking requirements that prevent high density housing from being built. We need much more housing.
rent control, more low-income housing, low barrier transitional housing for the houseless, fewer restrictions for adus, UCSC expanding housing
over priced
More housing options, fair rental practices. Restricting landlord abuse.
Lots of affordable options for renters and buyers young and old.
Affordable/priority housing for locals.
Smaller lots & units.
Like now but more dense, with a tram line along the greenway.
High-density multi-use housing in the downtown area, westside, and eastside. Less single-family housing and less car-centric infrastructure.
Rent control, more affordable housing for rent and for sale, transitional housing including tiny homes for individuals experiencing homelessness
Clean, safe, affordable
Allow more building
Government should get out of the way
Housing abundance can mitigate housing scarcity
Housing is affordable, tenant’s rights are protected, and housing opportunities are expanded for very low income people.
Affordable housing. Not expensive. Cheap and easy to find. Inclusive.
22.136
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Dense and cheap mixed-use housing for single people and families along transit corridors “For Sale.” *Entry-Level.* Microapartments, Mixed-Use commercial/residential, upzoned (6–10 stories), local architecture, walkable, close downtown & public transit.
More options for people being priced out of their neighborhoods. Preventive measures to prohibit landlords from drastically raising rents or seasonally evicting residents yo boost summer rentals.
I would like to see more apartment buildings and affordable condos.
Housing for all income levels in mixed use developments more people in each building (including the ones sitting empty as vacation rentals) Anyone who wants to live here can live here without incomprehensible financial stress. Housing is sustainable and developers are ethical. Less homes are empty year round. Vacation home owners pay empty house taxes.
Adding more affordable housing for local and working class residents.
A place where millennials and genz can invest in their collective future and generations to come Build up. I have lived around the planet and Santa Cruz is startling by the lack of high density accommodation. High density here is 3 storey duplexes, that is not high density building. And the high density requires public transportation and adequate water supply so we don't need more parking.
Increased capacity. Decreased barriers to maintaining/enhancing current stock (reduced setbacks, cheaper permits). Student housing by UCSC. Supportive housing away from downtown.
Santa Cruz should become the mini-Sf it's already started to become except without all the single family housing
Houses and apartments everywhere. Fuck NIMBYs.
More ADU and well built density condos/apts more incentive to accept vouchers in existing places.
If it keep escalating, we’ll have no community left.
Fair housing is needed. I want to see homelessness decrease. Big families deserve help. Farm workers deserve the best living conditions there is to offer. I want to see ACTUAL change. Actions not words.
Affordable housing for all.
Affordable options for the middle class community members - educators, healthcare workers, city workers, etc.
Multi use areas expanded
Affordable, accessible housing for the working families of Santa Cruz. No skyscrapers, no luxury apartments for wealthy transplants.
Median rent that is 1/3 or less of median income.
Some nice looking small houses that are affordable
Mixed income housing that takes advantage of urban infill and existing buildings to build net zero carbon buildings and to set an example in our region.
Integrated market rate and low cost housing throughout the city (rent & buy). Ability for my kids to buy here.
The internet implodes and all the tech millionaires go away. We have drum circles and community gardens. Take naps and make love
Highrises downtown
Denser housing and denser mixed-use communities
Tall dense mixed income and mixed use buildings in walkable neighborhoods with low speed traffic, high frequency transit, and safe bicycle facilities
22.137
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz I feel very bad about this towns future
Affordable housing for all with equitable access to public transit.
More robust mixed use downtown core with mid rise buildings and improved transit.
Every major thoroughfare requiring MINIMUM heights of 4 stories to build anything new so that we maximize our use of space. Use new state laws to bypass parking requirements. Build all kinds of housing, everywhere.
Options for students and aging in place inside the community. Housing units for teachers, police, fire members. Less out of state/out of country investors/landlords.
Everybody housed in nothing less than micro tiny homes without sacrificed liberty freedom or dignity It should be hard to own a vacation home in Santa Cruz. Hotels and motels should be encouraged, and houses converted to short-term rentals and offices discouraged by fees, policies, and taxes.
Young people and seniors living downtown in rental apartments will revitalize Santa Cruz and provide the economic engine to support diverse businesses.
Small (the units themselves, not the amount of units), affordable, within already developed areas, ecological.
More housing, period.
Medium/high density affordable housing spread throughout the city, with access to open space and public transit, walkable, and aesthetically designed
High density downtown.
Affordable based on cost of labor, in the hands of humans not corporations.
Seems a solar powered desalination plant needed to support more population Rent control, landlord oversight, affordable new home buyer programs. Tax breaks to low income homeowners.
Mixed use main street style communities - long term rentals above, shops, services, and jobs below We need more supply and I'm unbothered by how we get it We need more entry level ownership homes.
Higher density being ok
One that allows residents from all walks of life to find the housing they need.
Mixed use along corridors. Multi-story mixed income housing in the outer westside and downtown.
Duplex/triplex incentives in single-family home neighborhoods but limited in height based on neighborhood aesthetic (i.e. 1-3 stories).
Most of our workforce cannot afford to buy or rent here resulting in long commutes, job burnout and clogged highways. We need to develop workforce housing for all income levels.
Easier, cheaper and quicker process to go from proposal to stage t actual construction. Local interest groups should have less power to stall the process. More focus on walkability and transit, less on prioritizing traffic flow.
Santa Cruz desperately needs more housing of all types, concentrated along transportation corridors, as well as housing for people who use Section 8 benefits Mixed use, high density to preserve green spaces and avoid needing to drive everywhere.
Lots of student housing near USCS to lessen the strain on non students renting More multi-family housing, especially apartments and townhomes.
Equitable opportunities for diverse community, without massive high rise development.
Rural/suburban mix, not urban development.
22.138
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz My vision is to increase the availability for affordable housing, as well as increase the opportunities for homeless shelters
For it not to be in the top 5 most expensive places to live Denser housing on UCSC campus and near transit lines. Gradual transitions from tall buildings to single family houses.
Allow multi-family dwellings in traditional R1 zones, go vertical in more denser areas like downtown.
More of every type within the city's existing footprint. Where possible, neighborhoods should be mixed-use and less car-centric.
Teachers can afford, enough for UCSC students, no longer most expensive place to live Build more affordable housing for low income .
Housing everywhere, for everyone. Walkable neighborhoods with easy access to amenities and multimodal transit options.
Affordable for a single full time income with child
Where people can live where they work. Where people who make minimum wage can afford rent with one job.
High density multifamily housing around public spaces in walkable neighborhoods with regular buses, and bike paths and EV stations everywhere.
Accessibility and availability for all. Innovative design and construction to be used and shared as a solution to housing crisis.
Transformative housing abundance -- people aren't stressed about lack of supply but focused on building productive *NEW* Santa Cruz.
More apartments and condos across the city, with a focus on housing students off campus to lower housing costs for all.
Density would be increased throughout Santa Cruz except in areas affected by sea rise and located near public transportation.
focus on extremely-low, very-low and low-income housing of various sizes (1, 2, 3 bdrm), very little market-rate, to reflect community needs
Everyone is housed or comfortably located outside with proper partnering with housed communities Mixed-use, multi-family affordable workforce housing near transit and out of the floodplain. i will not have a future of housing in Santa Cruz if the city continues to support the gentrification and high rent prices.
Well designed dense infill community interactive walkable downtown 5-minute walk to urban community spaces, shopping, transit and dense mixed-use housing 'villages' from north to south along transit lines. Reduce sprawl, prioritize public transit centered communities on BUS and future RAIL line.
Social housing on all city owned lots.
multi-unit, multi-story affordable & supportive housing in mixed use developments: close to transit & services/retail/walkable.
That housing would be viewed as a basic human need or right instead of a commodity. That we can control the market and make things more affordable for everyone.
More affordable housing opportunities, both rental and homeownership, for extremely low to medium-income residents
Everyone is sheltered in a place where they can not only be safe, but happy. Every single person, no matter.
Supporting affordable housing and legalizing camping/rvs for houseless folks.
22.139
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table 3: Vision for the Future of Housing in Santa Cruz Affordable housing
Thoughtful, well-designed, responsive, supportive, and inclusive housing for ALL, even and especially the poor. More support and demand for
non-profit and affordable housing (not luxury housing).
Priority on low and very low income housing; affordable deed restricted housing; limits on additional market rate housing.
Denser urban development, multi use buildings in urban areas Genuinely promote solar & alternative energy, and ADU’s by actually eliminating all regulations that aren’t valid health or safety protections,
Housing for people that work here.
Workers can afford to live here. Housing is guaranteed, not a commodity. Renters have bargaining power, landlords kept in check.
Public housing for all, decriminalizing vehicle homelessness and giving people vehicles in the interim Dense, walkable, abundant.
Our housing policy aims to provide an abundance of housing such that anyone who wants a home can have one.
We must provide much more housing — prioritizing those most in need — with infill, repurposing, missing middle, and green spaces included.
Pedestrian centered, mixed-use infill development along transit corridors and downtown which contain a minimum of 20% affordable housing.
affordable
Affordable, diverse, friendly, medium density, bike and public transit based, art, culture and ecotourism hub, the anti-Carmel.
22.140
Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-10
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
C.Public Comments
This section contains all comments submitted on public review drafts throughout the entirety of the update process; this includes the original Public Review Draft prior to the first submittal to HCD and subsequent public review drafts with revisions from HCD comments and technical assistance.
22.141
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Public Comments
1. Public Review Draft Housing Element
The Santa Cruz Public Review Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element was made available to the community from March 24 to April 24, 2023.
Online Feedback Form
An online “Feedback Form” was also available to collect responses feedback on each chapter and appendix. The following provides all the comments received, including notes as to how each comment has been addressed.
Chapter 1: Introduction City Response
* Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element. *** Parks - With appropriately-increased focus on higher-density MFR development, the City must center the development, access, and maintenance of the City Parks system, so that MFR residents have ample and ready access to outdoor facilities for recreation and relaxation. There is no mention of this in the document; I submit that this is a glaring omission and one that cuts against achieving appropriate health-oriented equities. The City must commit to an enhance parks program as part of this RHNA cycle. That effort should include consideration of and, as appropriate, improvement or development of active-transportation-based “safe routes to parks” from areas of high-density development. *** Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for higher-density development. This work must contemplate Safe Routes to Schools, as well as to parks, critical resources (food shopping, etc.), and commercial centers. The City should develop and enforce clear standards for protecting and preserving existing active transportation corridors, as we (rightly) focus on increasing the housing density on our transit corridors and downtown. Those clear standards should be called out in this document. *** Locating Density - The document notes that we have 224% of the capacity needed in order attain the RHNA 6 goals (that is, develop-able lands allow for a 124% overage above the RHNA 6 target). As such, it’s clear that the City would be able to reduce the maximum densities allowed on shallow parcels immediately adjacent to existing homes (as along Water and Soquel in the Branciforte area). Zoning these parcels so that The Housing Element provides some
analysis of transit in Appendix E; however,
it does not do a deep-dive into transit
systems – this may be found in the
Mobility Element of the General Plan. The
same is true for active-transportation and
road safety.
Sites were selected along major corridors
to provide opportunity for mixed-use and
residential developments within close
proximity to commercial needs,
employment opportunities, and
community services. This will facilitate a
move away from car-reliance towards
active transportation.
The total unit capacity percentage is well
above the RHNA need to do sites including
affordability assumptions for all income
levels. In order to meet the RHNA for lower
and moderate-income RHNA, the abovemoderate income units are proportionally increased. It should be noted that a
number of currently identified abovemoderate income units will in reality be affordable – these include inclusionary
units and density bonus units which cannot
22.142
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Chapter 1: Introduction City Response
buildings “max out” at 3 stories (at most 4 with bonuses) would go a long way to gain community favor for the overall plan, and reduce the potential conflicts that may arise when out-of-scale projects are proposed (as was the case with 831 Water St). Doing so would clearly NOT threaten the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA 6 goals; as such, the City should carefully review and adjust the target zoning for parcels that meet these criteria. be projected through the Housing Element.
As such, the above-moderate income unit
potential will be lower than what is
currently identified in Appendix G.
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page 1-1] “Monterrey” should be “Monterey"
Typo has been corrected.
No retail. More parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Access to water services is detailed in
Appendix E and considered adequate for
the development of the 6th Cycle RHNA.
The Housing Element seeks to identify
housing opportunities in areas that promote
walking, biking, and transit use. However,
the City will continue to assess traffic trends
and continue to coordinate with METRO on
transit services.
I realize the RHNA numbers are based on state requirements, AND wouldn't it be sweet if Santa Cruz exceeded the RHNA numbers for low and very low income housing. I was shocked to see that the number of above moderate income units is greater than the low and very low combined.
The City cannot include unit projections for
inclusionary units, nor density bonus units.
Above moderate-income units will in reality
be lower as they include inclusionary and
density bonus units.
The City of Santa Cruz is not meeting the RHNA for very low-income and low-income housing. It is imperative for the City of Santa Cruz' City Council to require the developers to build less market-rate housing. The developers need to increase the number of low and very low-income housing. It is not wise to crowd up the city with new residents when current residents need places to live. and none are available. Seek private, state, and federal dollars to build low-income and very low-income housing.
The City has met its 5th Cycle RHNA for all
income levels as of April 13, 2023. This is
not reported in the 2022 Annual Progress
Report (APR) given the date, but it will be
reported in the 2023 APR.
There is zero population growth in California, Santa Cruz County, and the city. The numbers of housing units suggested is ridiculous and will lead to massive vacancies.
Comment has been noted.
Chapter 2: Policy Plan City Response
* Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Specific comments
*** 1. [Page 2-4] Goal 1.2f should include some consideration, based on the evolving and changing character of the community’s economy, of whether the industrial lands are zoned for highest/best use, and triggers for
1. Comment has been noted.
2. The city cannot require project
economics from a developer.
3. Comment has been noted.
22.143
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Chapter 2: Policy Plan City Response
when/whether zoning changes (e.g., to mixed commercial/residential) are called for. *** 2 [Page 2-8] Inclusionary Ordinance. The document refers to reviewing the Inclusionary Ordinance in order to maximize development of affordable housing without “being a barrier to housing development.” While I acknowledge that excessively high inclusionary levels can effectively prevent development, at present it’s not possible to assess the impacts of inclusionary ordinances, because developers are not sharing their business models and project economics. Developers who want to take advantage of density bonuses should be willing to share their project economics; the City should require it. It should not be the City’s obligation to blindly incent development.
*** 3. [Page 2-8] Vouchers. Further, the notion that developers can’t make affordable units “pencil” at a time when citizens have Housing Choice Vouchers that landlords won’t honor is simply disingenuous.
Landlords/developers can receive full market value for deemed affordable units simply by accepting these vouchers!
*** 4. [Page 2-13] Childcare. The Housing Element makes much of the City’s “commit[ment]” to childcare.
And yet the City (and County) in the recent CORE grants process completely eliminated City support for existing childcare programs (which the City and County had supported in the past). This community support enabled local child-care centers to provide low-cost care to lower-income families. Before developing new childcare facilities, the City should support and enhance existing programs to their capacity. Objective 3.2a should be re-written from “continue to assist” to “restore and expand assistance to”, since there is no currently-funded support for childcare.
*** 5. [Page 2-14] Homelessness Response. The City’s focus should be on supporting the development of shelter and facilities, not providing services. The County should be the lead agency for funding and supporting services delivered in those facilities (and facilities throughout the County). *** 6. [Page 2-16] UCSC. As relates to Policy 3.5, if I read this correctly (UCSC committed to 25% of housing for new facility/staff - 558 additional new housing units), then UCSC expansion will consume at least 1500 units of our RHNA 6 goal. It’s not clear to me how that helps further our goal of providing ample affordable housing for the community - the document should make clear how that goal reasonably fits within the overall Housing Element’s goals.
*** 7. [Page 2-16] Affordability. Further, the City and University should work together to ensure that oncampus housing is provided below prevailing market, in order to relieve UCSC pressure on local housing stock, availability, and affordability.
*** 8. [Page 2-27] Transit and active transportation. Policy 7.3 should be more explicit. Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element. Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along
4. City passed childcare impact fee in 2021.
City will continue to seek additional
funding sources.
5. Comment has been noted.
6. Comment has been noted.
7. The City does not have control over
UCSC housing but will continue to
encourage more affordable housing on the
campus.
8. Comment has been noted.
22.144
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Chapter 2: Policy Plan City Response
with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for high No retail. More parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
The planning department and city council need to visit Santana Row in San Jose. We could do the same here. Comment has been noted.
The housing goals look good. I appreciate the vision.
Maybe it's feedback for 2.5a. I'm not sure where it fits in. Santa Cruz currently has a rent control loop hole that allows property owners to evict long term tenants without just cause. This is used to evict folks who have rent controlled spaces so landlords can charge more rent. Santa Cruz needs stricter rent control measures to ensure the continuation of affordable housing.
Yes, to continuing to encourage/force the university to provide housing for its students.
Policy 6.1 It's not possible to obtain a Housing Choice Voucher or even get on the waitlist.
Comment has been noted.
It is not a good policy to assume people can travel on the poorly capable bus system in Santa Cruz. The bus system needs re-organization
Comment has been noted.
Why are you not upzoning R-1 zones? Please allow for multi-family development on all residential parcels! The City is not able to rely on the upzoning of single-family zones to address RHNA. The
purpose of the Housing Element is to
identify capacity opportunities within the
guidelines established by the State
Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Chapter 2 is designed to increase poverty in our city at the expense of others. Comment has been noted.
I was glad to see much of the policy focused on affordable and fair housing. Especially 6.3 Support the development and marketing of accessible housing, senior housing, and tenant services.
The most commonly indicated obstacle to housing indicated in your community engagement survey was finding it in the first place! People need to be able to go to one place to find out what is available. That is starting to happen at the downtown library. For fairness there needs to be bilingual support for finding housing. A simplified application process, also with bilingual support.
Comment has been noted.
22.145
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Chapter 2: Policy Plan City Response
Policies are words, but we need actual mechanisms and systems in place to deliver the goals of the policies The second most important policy for me, is 7.3 Transit -oriented housing.
In short, I'm looking for transit-oriented housing, without parking or retail space. This would maximize land use for more people to have affordable places to live, while allowing/creating shared green space with trees apart from the buildings.
More student housing in city of Santa Cruz is needed, and more student housing at UCSC is needed The City is including UCSC units as part of its candidate housing sites strategies. These
units have received approval from the UC
Board of Regents and are planned to be
constructed and completed within the
Planning Period. The City will continue to
encourage student housing development.
I was disappointed by the policy plan. I have several concerns:
(1) First, the high regard for ADUs seems misplaced. These units are overwhelmingly small and unaffordable - rents for studios, which ADUs are often characterized as, more than doubled in Santa Cruz between 2021 and 2022. Encouraging more development of unearned income and housing that is barely large enough to meaningfully cover one person is not something to applaud. If the city continues to pursue ADUs, it should do so with incentives that encourage larger units and specific affordability covenants/restrictions, or requirements to these effects whenever possible under state law. If ADUs simply represent additional opportunities to create unearned income by holding onto housing, then we are encouraging speculative investment, creating incentives to hold on to property even after residents leave to move somewhere else, and thus hurting renters and would-be homeowners who are unable to access the shrinking and more expensive market of homes. (2) Second, the policy plan could be more specific about ELI housing. I appreciated the planners' comments about ELI housing, particularly what the city has done so far to promote more low income housing.
Nonetheless, the actual Housing Element does not make specific commitments towards ELI housing, relies on a methodology for estimating ELI housing needs that is nonsensical given the data about our city's renters. The Housing Element relies on the assumption that ELI housing constitutes 50% of the VLI RHNA numbers.
However, the city's own data shows that VLI renters outnumber ELI renters by 2:1, suggesting a more reasonable plan is that somewhere in the ballpark of 66% of the VLI RHNA number should be designed for ELI renters. Failing to do so means that meeting the VLI RHNA number will not result in housing access for many of the renters that earn below 60% of AMI. The Housing Element should contain specific commitments to ELI housing and, to the extent possible, consider ELI-specific needs. While a number of developments mentioned
1. ADUs are only one smaller part of the
City’s housing strategy, but they do play an
important role in providing affordable and
naturally affordable housing and can create
more housing options in areas of high
opportunity.
2. The Policy Plan chapter now includes
more mentions of ELI specifically.
3. Comment has been noted.
4. Comment has been noted.
22.146
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Chapter 2: Policy Plan City Response
during the Planning Commission meeting may have included ELI housing, the actual Housing Element mentions only the Library Development and the two Pacific Ave developments as having ELI-specific housing. (3) Third, there is little in the way of preservation to ensure existing affordable housing stock, including naturally affordable housing, is protected from investment pressures. The consideration of a right of first refusal as a specific policy recommendation is laudable, but not meaningful without community land trusts or sufficient financing for organizations that might purchase and preserve affordable housing stock. Other policies that might discourage converting affordable housing into market-rate housing, like limits on building conversions, are not mentioned and should be considered while the city and state continue to work on creating more robust funding for preservation endeavors.
(4) Fourth, there was a concerning lack of effort to provide meaningful protection for renters. Policy 4.1 deals with rental assistance, but mentions only providing emergency temporary assistance or support with security deposits and sets the goal of "at least 50 renters," which is underwhelming given the size of the city's renter population and the number of renters facing extreme rent burden. Loftier, robust goals are necessary if renters are going to be protected while we wait for affordable housing pipelines to materialize. The other measure to help renters (6.1) is HCVs, but a substantial share of HCVs go unused in California each year (although we have not found data for Santa Cruz specifically). Additionally, discrimination against HCV recipients is rampant - it is publicly visible on housing postings. If HCVs are a cornerstone of the Housing Element, auditing and enforcement of Source-of-Income discrimination must also be incorporated.
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary City Response
* Editorial suggestions
** [Throughout] Inconsistent use of “LatinX” and “Latino”. Consult with the community about preference and use one or the other, but not both.
Comment has been noted.
No retail. More parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
When the community tries to engage to tell the City Planners and the City Council what they want in the way of housing the City Council does not vote in accordance with the residents. The survey data in the past has been slated to accomplish what the planners wanted.
Comment has been noted.
These kinds of surveys are filled out by activists or government employees and are meaningless Comment has been noted.
22.147
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary City Response
Good to see this comprehensive data collected Housing Element Update Survey from the community, which confirms my own assessments and experiences. The charts were particularly helpful. I noted the in-person input from technology disadvantaged neighborhoods who said their #1 housing challenge was finding housing.
They most wanted more affordable housing -- and trees! Less important to them was parking & shopping access. So why the emphasis on mixed use so prevalent as a policy in the city? Parking and retail take up much space needed for housing.
The City’s main goal through the Housing
Element Update process is to facilitate
affordable housing development. Mixed-use
developments allow for a mix of
affordability levels within close proximity to
resources, and thus decreasing travelrelated costs.
While there is no doubt that the staffers put significant effort into community engagement, this is still an incredibly small and non-representative sample. Somehow renters constitute only 40% of your respondents, when an accurate sample would be above 50%.
I would encourage you to try to perhaps improve the representativeness (although I understand you also used focus groups)
I was also concerned with how community engagement translated into recommendations. Rent control and just cause protections are left out, despite appearing in the feedback text, and while ADUs get a specific callout in Chapter 2, policies with far more support than ADUs, like MFH and zoning, did not get a callout.
Note that this figure is only a representation
of survey respondents. The City held focus
group meetings with renters, students, and
young adults on November 29, 2022, to get
specialized input from the renter
community.
Appendix B: Review of Past Performance City Response
Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** [Throughout] Benchmarking. There are many missed opportunities for the document to benchmark Santa Cruz demography, in order to provide needed context for the public and for planners and policy-makers, and in order to highlight those areas where Santa Cruz notably differs from other communities or national standards.
In my opinion, it’s not enough to simply compare Santa Cruz to other parts of the County, given that county communities differ widely. It would be helpful to add comparisons to other benchmarks / communities (e.g., in many cases Santa Barbara or Santa Monica may be relevant comparators; in other cases, statewide or nationwide numbers may (also) be useful). Specific instances include:
[Page B-2] Seniors (12.5% of population)
[Page B-3, C-20] Disabilities (9.7% of population)
[Page B-7] ELI households (25% of households)
[Page C-10] HH size (2.4 persons per HH)
[Page C-17] Overcrowding (% by owner v renter)
[Page C-18] Cost-burdening (55.4% of renters)
[Page C-25] Poverty (20% living in poverty)
[Page C-26] Homelessness (benchmark outside of our area, please) Language recommendations have been
applied.
22.148
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Appendix B: Review of Past Performance City Response
** Specific comments
*** [Page B-8] UCSC. The text here is unclear and potentially self-contradictory regarding the University’s commitment to student housing. The document refers to the settlement agreement between the City and UCSC, which requires the University to provide housing for 2/3 of its student population. The document then indicates the LRDP proposes 10,125 on-campus beds and 579 off-campus beds. That is NOT 2/3 of the LRDP’s target student population. The Element needs to make clear whether and, if so, how the University plans to meet the settlement agreement terms, or make clear that the University does not plan to do so (and the resulting impacts on the local housing situation).
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page B-3] “…Loudon Nelson…” should be “…London Nelson…” ** [Page B-6] “…homeless persons’ being…” should be “…homeless persons being…”; bullet for Janus item formatting inconsistent with other bullets
** [Page B-7] CHAS is used without definition (not defined until page C-11) ** [Page B-8] “…50 unit affordable…” should be “50-unit affordable…”; “…full-time while attend school…” should be “…full-time while attending school…"
Need parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
Past performance has been very poor. The residents speak up but the residents are ignored in the majority of the cases with it comes to approving buildings in Santa Cru.
Comment has been noted.
The emphasis on poor people listing vouchers as accomplishments is pathetic. They are still poor people living off others and welfare is the business of the Federal government, not cities.
Comment has been noted.
Appendix C: Housing Needs Assessment City Response
* Comments and Questions
** Specific comments
*** [Page C-10, C-23, etc.] The numbers presented relating to single-adult households (HHs) are inconsistent and/or unclear throughout. For example, on page C-10, Table C-9 cites 1,680 “Female HH, No Spouse Present”, while Table C-10 cites 1,008 “Female Households, No Spouse” and 1,680 “Male Households, No Spouse”.
Tables C-24 and C-25 (pages C-23, 24) suggest that only female-headed HHs are in poverty (210 single-parent HH living in poverty v 210 Single Parent Female HH Living in Poverty). That seems incredible to me. Need to make a thorough and critical review of all of these figures in order to ensure consistency, validity and accuracy.
Also need to clarify whether referring to single-person HHs or single-parent HHs (with dependent children).
Language recommendations have been
applied and data corrections made.
22.149
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Appendix C: Housing Needs Assessment City Response
Again, these HH numbers are difficult to make sense of throughout. *** [Page C-19] Reference to female-headed (presumably no-partner) HHs as “special needs”, per HCD. I would suggest that the Element should certainly center HCD-designated special needs HHs, and should also note that male-headed (presumably no-partner) HHs will, in many cases, evidence the same special needs as femaleheaded HHs (need for childcare, etc.). Analyses breaking out female-headed no-partner HHs should also break out male-headed no-partner HHs.
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page C-2] Formatting of numbers in the 2020 Actual column needs attention. ** [Page C-11] CHAS used and defined here; used previously, without definition, on page B-7. ** [Page C-17] The narrative regarding Table C-17 (overcrowding prevalence, owner v renter occupied) does not comport with the numbers presented in the table. Fix the narrative so that it makes sense based on the numbers (215 is 3.3% of 6,515, which is nowhere to be found in the table). ** [Page C-22] The narrative relating to Table C-23 (on the following page) should be cleaned up. It refers to “five or more” and “six or more” and “seven or more” occupant HHs, but the data are actually 5-person, 6- person, and 7 or more. Also, the text says that there are more owner-occupied 5- and 6-person HHs, but that’s not reflected in the data; all of the categories have more renter HHs than owner HHs. ** [Page C-27] Using West Valley College as an example “out of area” commuter school seems an odd choice.
How about SJSU or SCU instead? How many folks commute to WVC? ** [Page C-29] “…nearby jurisdiction.” Should be “…nearby jurisdictions.” ** [Page C-32] “…higher to the ACS…” should be “…higher than the ACS…” ** [Page C-33] “the U.S… .” Should be “The U.S. …"
No retail. Parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
Table c-32
Shocking to see the percent of seasonal, vacation, or occasional use. Would love to see additional movements in place to revive the idea of an Empty Home Tax. It worked in SF. It could impact the amount of housing stock available or raise funds for affordable housing.
Table C-35
Teachers are very low to low income in this table. I worked on housing elements in different jurisdictions. It seemed like if people knew that building affordable housing means building teacher housing, they might be more open to it.
Comment has been noted.
Table C-6 details employment in the City by
sector – “Education services, heal care, and
social assistance” represents 13% of
employment in the City.
22.150
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Appendix C: Housing Needs Assessment City Response
The needs are for low-income and very low-income housing. The City of Santa Cruz planning department needs to apply for grants for building housing as Salinas and Monterey do. The city manager needs to take action to make this happen.
The Policy Plan establishes a number of
actions to the City will take to continue to
collaborate with local jurisdictions.
The population statistics are complete bullshit. Population growth is less than zero for a few years. TOTAL BULLSHIT. Also, WHO CARES about racial demographics? Job growth numbers are COMPLETE BULLSHIT. The population growth is ZERO! Lots of statistics based on 202o numbers. a LOT has changed since then Comment has been noted.
The Housing Needs Assessment data is
based on the latest available at the time the
document was written.
Appendix D: Fair Housing Assessment City Response
* Comments and Questions
** Specific comments
*** [Page D-54] Vouchers. I would like to understand why there is an “extreme shortage of housing vouchers” - what are the causes of this shortage, and what can we do, as a community, to fund or create more vouchers (as well as get landlords to accept them)?
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page D-5] “…polices…” should be “…policies…”
** [Page D-23] “…it is consider as…” should be “…it is considered as…” ** [Page D-47] “…less than one persons…” should (probably) refer to one percent?; similarly with “…and one identified as Asian…”? If the latter is, indeed, one person, then say so. ** [Page D-52] Reference to exponential population growth is inaccurate and hyperbolic. Exponential growth is growth that accelerates over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth). That is not the case here. “Rapid” or “accelerated” growth seems more appropriate.
Language recommendations have been
applied.
No retail more parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
TOTAL BULLSHIT. NO, there is nothing wrong with communities that don't correspond to your ideal demographic profiles, or income profiles. We do NOT want to be 100% homogenized by force into your asshole ideas of utopia.
Comment has been noted.
Appendix E: Housing Constraints City Response
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page E-3] “…$100 a square foot…” should be “…$100 per square foot…”; “…Discloser Act…” should be Language recommendations have been
applied.
22.151
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Appendix E: Housing Constraints City Response
“…Disclosure Act…”; the narrative regarding approval rates by ethnicity are inconsistent. One paragraph cites 60% for American Indian; the other, 45.2% - correct as appropriate. ** [Page E-45] Reference to 4.2 million gallons per day (GPD) to SCWD service area is incorrect. The SCWD serves an average of closer to 6.5MGD year round (lower in winter; higher in summer). The 4.2 MIGHT be correct for customers within the City Limits; would need to confirm that with SCWD. ** [Page E-45] “…pipped…” should be “…piped…”
** [Page E-46] “…and potable and domestic…” should be “…and potable domestic…" No retail. More parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
Santa Cruz is constrained by available land. Comment has been noted.
Nobody gives a shit about racial statistics. Comment has been noted.
Appendix F: Housing Resources City Response
No retail. Parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
The city of Santa Cruz Planners and city manager needs to meet with the city manager and planning staff and commissions of Salinas and Monterey to learn how to apply for Federal and State Grants to gain the funds to build 100% affordable housing via grants. Santa Cruz has a very high homeless rate which would make our town a top candidate.
Comment has been noted. The City will
continue to regularly coordinate with local
jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations to
maximize potential funding opportunities
and address homelessness. The Policy Plan
establishes actions to further engage
neighboring communities in addressing
homelessness in the region.
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory City Response
* Comments and Question
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Locating Density - The document notes that we have 224% of the capacity needed in order attain the Language recommendations have been
applied.
22.152
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory City Response
RHNA 6 goals (that is, develop-able lands allow for a 124% overage above the RHNA 6 target). As such, it’s clear that the City would be able to reduce the maximum densities allowed on shallow parcels immediately adjacent to existing homes (as along Water and Soquel in the Branciforte area). Zoning these parcels so that buildings “max out” at 3 stories (at most 4 with bonuses) would go a long way to gain community favor for the overall plan, and reduce the potential conflicts that may arise when out-of-scale projects are proposed (as was the case with 831 Water St). Doing so would clearly NOT threaten the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA 6 goals; as such, the City should carefully review and adjust the target zoning for parcels that meet these criteria. ** Specific comments
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page G-5] “…recently developed sites…” should be “…recently-developed sites…” ** [Page G-31] “…the construction a…” should be “…the construction of a …”; “SRO’s” should be “SROs”.
I am extremely underwhelmed at the size of the housing sites inventory. What is this, a RHNA for ants? The housing inventory has to be at least three times bigger than what is proposed.
The City is mandated by State law to
identify capacity to meet the RHNA. The
City will continue to work with the
community, developers, and organizations
to facilitate housing production throughout
the Planning Period.
No retail. Parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
Appendix H: Glossary City Response
No retail. Parking on site Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response Here is rest of my commentary on Chapter 2, which was truncated due to Microsoft Forms limitation:
*** [Page 2-27] Transit and active transportation. Policy 7.3 should be more explicit. Transit - Much is made of Language recommendations have been
applied.
22.153
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element. Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for higher-density development. This work must contemplate Safe Routes to Schools, as well as to parks, critical resources (food shopping, etc.), and commercial centers. The City should develop and enforce clear standards for protecting and preserving existing active transportation corridors, as we (rightly) focus on increasing the housing density on our transit corridors and downtown. Those clear standards should be called out in this document. *** [Page 2-28] Wildfire. City zoning and building policies must incorporate the learnings from recent urbanarea fires (e.g., Santa Rosa), so that our built environment is appropriately protected from wildfires that become urban fires. Flood / sea-level rise. City zoning and building policies must reflect flooding risks in lowlying or flood-prone areas. Specifically, building code should ensure that vital building infrastructure is safe from flood waters (whether caused by weather or sea-level rise, or a combination of the two). * Editorial suggestions
** [Page 2-2] Make left-indentation of the “Goals” descriptive text consistent (text for Goals 1 and 4 differs from others)
** [Page 2-5] “…community to potential barriers to…” re-write to make sense; “…to recognized…” should be “…to recognize…”
** [Page 2-8] “…the City’s Inclusionary.” Should presumably be “…the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance.” ** [Page 2-16] “USCS” should be “UCSC”
** [Page 2-20] “…are home to large a proportion…” should be “…are home to a large proportion…" ** [Page 2-22] “…previously known a…” should be “…known as…” ** [Page 2-25] “…produces and delivers to nearly…” should be “…produces and delivers water to nearly 100,000 customers …”
** [Page 2-27] “…compliment the…” should be “…complement the…” Housing yes with parking for each unit on site. Forget retail instead help the downtown ghost town which will only get worse with their parking lost to renters.
Comment has been noted.
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission.
Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.
Comment has been noted.
Many local/CA cities require story-poles to identify the height and mass of proposed buildings. Buildings the size and mass as proposed should be shown before approval is given. I have spoken with California Story Poles Comment has been noted.
22.154
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response at 800 987 8046. They serve many cities in CA., several locally. It is only right and fair that the City of Santa Cruz be fully transparent about the scale of the proposed buildings. It is disingenuous to move forward without providing more info to residents/voters. I have been in Santa Cruz all my life, 72 years, as my family purchased an allotment in Paradise Park in 1924. I understand progress and the need for housing but a 12 story building and the other proposed development south of Laurel will shock people if completed. It is not right to not “show residents/voters the scale of the development”.
The concern we have is the destruction of the crucial values of the residents of this area. Constructing megastructures that resemble early Soviet Russian designs is the opposite of why people want to live here . The developers could care less about the monstrosities they build. They often do not live here.
It is so obvious that certain members of City leadership in the past and present are very willing to allow our community to become an uninviting destination for visitors. The city of Carmel is very aware of the need to keep the beauty of the area they live in. Do you truly think coming into town to visit the ocean, and driving by the Soviet style architecture is going to promote tourism? How short sighted are you? We depend on being a tourist destination. Ugly, oversized structures will mean loss of revenue.... pretty obvious.
Years ago, the fight to save Lighthouse Field was successful. And now, it is a tourist haven. Then, someone wanted to construct a parking structure on West Cliff Dr. Again, that was prevented, and West Cliff is still attractive. However....look at what has been allowed. The money voted for to refurbish our downtown library has been misappropriated. Every other branch in the county has already been worked on. Some ill advised members of our City thought is was a great idea to take that money and give it to an out of town developer who thinks libraries should be in dark basements. Really? You think that is the desire of the residents of Santa Cruz? NO. Also, to claim it is for low income people, is a sad example of dishonest developers, hoping we are too stupid to notice how few low income units are actually built. The developers think we should look like San Jose. Then, all of the folks who come here from San Jose will loose the chance to enjoy a beautiful seaside town . Instead, they may think they never left town. It will look exactly like the worst parts of the valley.
We are so saddened by what you are creating for our young people. Long after the ugly monstrosities are built, Santa Cruz will no longer be a place of beauty . The young will hear stories of how it used to be, but sadly, is no more. Is this really the legacy you wish to leave? We are at a time where we need to have creative and sustainable growth. We are limited by our water supply. This area can only support a limited amount of people due to the environmental constraints. As city leaders, you are heading towards environmental disaster when we run out of water. Do you expect us to reduce our usage so developers can make their money? Are you prepared for the loss of tourisim once you have destroyed the village atmosphere of Santa Cruz? I would hope that you seriously consider the issues we have mentioned in this essay. Perhaps you might even make it easier for people to respond to your request for input. You might learn something. You might think twice about destroying the very thing that provides income to this area.
Comment has been noted.
I'd love to see Santa Cruz go big and lead by example by chucking the RHNA numbers and building a greater percentage of very low and low income housing in this cycle.
The City is mandated by State law to
identify capacity to meet the RHNA. The
City will continue to work with the
22.155
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response community, developers, and organizations
to facilitate housing production throughout
the Planning Period.
1. Add incentives for a Mobile Home interest rate & term to be the same rate & term as a Residential home - especially for seniors over 62 years old (Mobile Home mortgages are usually much higher than for residential).
2. Allow for a Mobile Home Duplex - add incentives to exchange an older Mobile Home for a Duplex Mobile Home (one side for the owner & a studio for a renter). 3. Allow Bike Sharing in Mobile Home Parks. 4. UCSC must support building more housing for staff on/off campus, and change the static data (The current breakdown is 80% for Faculty, 15% for Staff & 5% for nonsenate academics - including housing for staff families). 5. More housing along the Rail/Trail. 6. Allow detached bedrooms in Mobile home parks as ADU's.
Added: Objective 6.4e. Maintain the City’s
Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance.
This housing element does not plan well for the future of Santa Cruz. Building additional market rate units and removing parking will not be beneficial to our town.
Comment has been noted.
Please recommend to the politicians that short-term/vacation rentals should be illegal or HEAVILY restricted in the City. That is what hotels are for. Short-term rentals are horrendous for our housing stock and the City needs to rid them. South Lake Tahoe has banned short term rentals and Palm Springs has placed a cap on only 36 days per YEAR for a short-term rental. So many homes are wasted on this use that is terrible for the locals - please enact change.
Comment has been noted.
UPZONE UPZONE UPZONE! Please convince the politicians to upzone this city so that supply doesn't keep sitting artificially depressed. UPZONE R-1 to allow multi-family development! Comment has been noted.
You are out of your fucking minds increasing housing into a housing crash when there is absolutely zero population growth.
Comment has been noted.
Thank you for all the effort that went into stating these policies. Now on the next step of actually implementing them in a transparent and equitable way.
Comment has been noted.
I have lived in Santa Cruz most of my life. We cannot build our way to affordability and I wish our electeds and other city staff would work with the community to respond to absurd state mandates with innovative and realistic recommendations rather than jump at the noise coming from Sacramento which orders a one-size-fitsall non-solution to every city in the state to build, build, build. This thinking destroys towns and brings in second home buyers from elsewhere, driving up the cost of housing while our leaders scamper faster around the hampster wheel to meet political goals NOT reflective of the community they are supposed to serve and, please be honest with yourselves, not to mention us, do very little to assist our service workers, teachers, etc. in affording a home.
At the very least, do NOT build higher than the eight story behemoths already planned. You can do that much for us, can't you? Help us keep some of the character that is Santa Cruz. We are not San Jose. Don't make us one. And yes, we want height poles. We do not want 12 or 17...are you kidding us?!?...story buildings with so little parking it's laughable if it weren't so tragic. I get that we want to greatly reduce traffic but with the Warriors Arena, new luxury hotel, etc., it ain't gonna happen. I drive an electric car. I ride my bike. I'm Comment has been noted.
22.156
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response watching my hometown transform into a place I can't recognize. So call me names. Call me a NIMBY. That's just wrong and too simplistic. I know we need to house our residents. I just don't believe the way it's being approached is going to make a big difference. I've already heard friends (local) say that they will buy one of the new condos for their families to enjoy. I can only imagine the same being discussed around the state by folks who already own homes. I hope to get more involved now that I have retired.
And housing the homeless?? These projects will do next to nothing to meet that ideal.
Policy 1 – Housing Production
We are thrilled that the City has met their 5th cycle goals, however, with no rezoning taking place to meet the 6th cycle production goals, policies to increase housing production will be of huge importance.
It is stated under Policy 1.2, and more fully in Appendix D: Fair Housing Assessment, that most new housing will be concentrated in the central core of the City, meaning along major commercial corridors and on major opportunity sites. With this area receiving over 45% of the new housing, including over 40% of the Very Low and Low-Income sites, we believe that the City should be looking towards additional opportunities to meet AFFH goals, including in majority single-family neighborhoods of other districts.
We believe the City can and should go further to enable more housing types in its most resource rich neighborhoods. Objective 1.3e intends to utilize SB 10 to increase residential density in transit rich areas, which in Santa Cruz are not high resource. The SB 10 scope should be expanded to include urban infill sites in high resource districts outside of transit rich areas to allow for more affordable housing throughout the City.
The downtown area is the most amenity
rich in the city and is the most sustainable
area to grow. The Housing Element does
still support densification efforts in lowerdensity areas so there is a reasonable balance of objectives.
Pipeline Projects
A large source of new units for the City during the 6th cycle will be from pipeline projects. For jurisdictions relying heavily on pipeline projects, HCD recommends that “…the element should include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects, including the number of units and affordability (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining entitlements, supporting funding applications, expediting approvals and monitoring of project progress, including rezoning or identification of additional sites, if necessary).” We suggest that the city commit to implementing such a recommendation to facilitate development, such as by proactively monitoring and facilitating post-entitlement developments with technical and/or financial assistance.
The City was successfully able to meet its 5th
Cycle RHNA due to concerted efforts and
development facilitation. The City aims to
also meet its 6th Cycle RHNA and will
continue working closely with the
development community to make this
happen, including pre-existing efforts such
as monitoring and assistance.
Mid-Cycle Review
Under Policy 1.1, the City commits to providing new housing through adoption of the Housing Element (1.1a) and review and annual publication of sites inventory (1.1b). The City can make a stronger commitment to appropriate progress towards its 6th cycle goals. We would like to see an objective with a more active midcycle review and adjustment. Tying this review to commitments to increase housing production such as rezoning, ADU incentives, or removing development constraints would allow the City to minimize impacts of falling behind in the 6th cycle. Making these commitments specific now would reduce the staff time required to implement mid-cycle. As part of the mid-cycle review, the City should create objectives that monitor the progress of pipeline projects. This should include automatic entitlement extensions until midway through the Comment has been noted.
22.157
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response 6th cycle, a commitment to advocate for city-entitled projects to be approved by the Coastal Commission, and proactively reaching out to all pipeline projects to confirm that there is still development interest.
Objective Standards
The City should expand Objective 1.2b to include a policy that any project found consistent with Objective Standards is placed on the consent agenda for all hearing bodies. Such projects should only be appealable to council if denied by the planning commission, or if the appeal is related to consistency with objective standards. This would greatly increase the incentive for developers to design projects compliant with the standards.
Objective was amended to included
language that Objective Standards
supersede subjective ones.
Parking
We are pleased to see that elimination of parking minimums is intended as a policy objective, however it is not stated as a commitment in objective 1.3c. In the City’s work to achieve this, we believe the elimination of such requirements within a mile walking area of five or more amenities (pharmacies, grocery stores, transit stops, etc), and in very low vehicle travel areas, would be a good intermediate policy stepping stone.
Comment has been noted.
FAR and Density
A significant constraint to development of 2+ bedroom units is the units/ acre density requirement, something that does not apply to smaller units such as SROs. In order to increase the number of family sized (2+ bed) units built, this constraint should be removed or significantly modified. This should also be addressed by increasing the FAR for projects consisting of 50% or more 2+ bedroom units. This increase should allow the same net number of units as if they were proposed as SROs or a similar unlimited density unit.
The City has Flexible Density Units (FDUs)
which are small units that do not count
towards unit/acre density. This can
incentivize a developer to build smaller,
more naturally affordable units, and can
also incentivize development of larger 2+
bedroom units supported by additional
FDUs when units/acre densities are met.
Policy 2 - Affordable Housing
The ordinance options allowing 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use would greatly speed along much needed affordable housing. As such, we urge expedited approval of Objective 2.2g to 2024 or earlier rather than a quarter of the way through the 6th cycle. A commitment to developing or declaring city parking lots downtown surplus by a certain date with the goal of providing affordable housing would also be a valuable policy.
As part of objective 2.4c, we support establishing a Community Opportunity to Purchase program to give qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer or refusal to purchase certain properties offered for sale in the City. We also support establishing a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase4 program to help prevent displacement, empower tenants, and preserve affordable housing when the owner decides to sell.
Comment has been noted.
Policy 3 - Special Needs and Homelessness
Permanent supportive housing is a key solution towards solving homelessness. Policy 3.4 should explicitly indicate equitable distribution (and development potential) of such housing across all districts.
Persons with disabilities benefit from the development of extremely low- and very low-income housing.
Objective 3.1c falls short of any commitment to develop housing, only to “publicize housing accessible to persons with disabilities”. The City should increase incentives for extremely low housing in objectives under Comment has been noted.
22.158
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response Policy 2 - Affordable Housing, such as additional density bonus (Policy 2.3) or modification of the inclusionary ordinance (objective 2.1a) or by-right approval (objective 2.2g) to favor more extremely-low homes.
The University
The two objectives related to the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), 3.5a and 3.5b, are vaguely worded to “Continue to collaborate…” and “Support state legislation…” which are repeats from the 5th cycle. Note that as recently as 2022, the City formally expressed opposition to proposed legislation intended to facilitate more housing at UCSC.
The City has been and continues to be a significant barrier to development at UCSC, as evidenced by past and ongoing litigation6. This is not acknowledged in the constraints portion of the City’s housing element. The city should make a good faith effort to analyze the barriers it presents to housing construction and planning with regards to UCSC and propose programs to mitigate these impacts. The city should commit to providing municipal services to new housing at UCSC and a policy to not sue over housing production on campus or to obstruct UCSC housing projects through other means such as withholding water access via the Local Agency Formation Commission process.
The City’s current litigation with UCSC is
seeking greater housing commitment from
UCSC, not to delay housing.
Policy 5 - Neighborhood Vitality
Policy 5 opens with the following context: “Quality of life is shaped, in part, by neighborhood conditions in Santa Cruz. As an older, established community, Santa Cruz requires a concerted effort to encourage the maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing and to promote sustainable, livable neighborhoods in the face of increasing density.” We wholly reject the framing that density and sustainable, livable neighborhoods are incompatible. The city should update this language.
Updated
Policy 6 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
As discussed in our Housing Production section, a majority of new housing is being planned along major corridors. This leaves out many exclusive and high opportunity neighborhoods from producing their fair share of housing.
Creation of missing middle housing isn’t mentioned within the policy plan - the City should adapt zoning regulations that would incentivize this form of housing. Examples include reducing minimum lot size, lot width, and parking requirements (kudos to the latter already being included!) We believe the City can and should go further to enable more housing types in its most resource rich neighborhoods. Objective 6.2d should use SB 10 to increase density in R1 districts, not just to allow construction of Flexible Density Units (FDUs). FDUs are a housing type, not a zoning district. The time frame for zoning amendments to expand housing opportunities in single family zones should be sooner than 2029 as proposed in Objective 6.2c. Similarly, the City’s deadline for updating the local SB9 ordinance consistent with State Law should be earlier than 2027.
Policy 6.4 recognizes that displacement may follow new development. Improvements of community assets, as proposed in Objective 6.4a may also result in displacement. This objective should include applicable antidisplacement strategies.
Comment has been noted. City follows SB 9
state law and does have posted guidelines.
22.159
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response Sites Inventory - Small Sites Program
The site inventory identifies a significant number of small parcels for development, many of which are projected to accommodate low income units. Per HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook “A parcel smaller than one half acre is considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households, unless the housing element demonstrates development of housing affordable to lower income households on these sites is realistic or feasible.” The City claims that many of these parcels have development opportunities due to common ownership with adjacent parcels; the Housing Element includes no objectives in the Policy Plan with specific incentives to facilitate consolidation. We recommend an incentive program such as a FAR density bonus for projects which involve small lot consolidation.
Objective 1.1e has been added to promote
the development of affordable units on
small parcels through lot consolidation and
coordination with property owners.
Upzoning Near Potential Light Rail Stations
The RTC has multiple scenarios for a passenger light rail route. In most scenarios stations would be located on the Westside, Bay/California, Downtown, and Seabright. We encourage a program to look at additional density along the Coastal Rail Trail, with a focus on these station locations.
Comment has been noted.
Tenant Protections
As a majority-renter city, it is important that we have strong tenant protections. There are a number of programs we would like to see implemented or expanded in the City including:
• Elimination of or cap on rental application fees
• Creation of a rental registry. This was recently passed by both Salinas and Monterey • Local preference for people employed in the county
• COPA and TOPA programs (see Policy 2 - Affordable Housing) • Conduct a disparate impact analysis of non-high(est) resource areas and apply a live-work preference if it matches county demographics
Comment has been noted.
Need for Active Language, Dates and Measurable Metrics
Objectives/Time frames lack active language, dates, and measurable metrics to determine the success of the objective. Time frames are often a recitation of the process, not a commitment to an outcome. Some examples:
Policy 1 - Housing Production
• 1.2d - Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Adopt rezonings for the Ocean Street Area plan by the end of 2024, and submit to Coastal Commission as Local Coastal Program Amendment by [date]
• 1.3b - Time frame is to “Meet annually with the development community to consider process improvements.” Also, 1.4b time frame is to “Meet annually with the development community”. These are commitments to meetings; they should include development of an action or improvement plan based on input.
• 1.3c time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide by January 2028”
Multiple updates made.
22.160
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response • 1.5a and 1.5b are focused on important facilitation of ADU development, and both commit to “consider” amendments or modifications, with no dates. 1.5e Time frame should be tightened to “Amend ADU owner occupancy regulations by May 2024”
Policy 2 - Affordable Housing
• 2.1a and 2.1b and 2.2a Time frames all are “Review…and present…” related to the Inclusionary Ordinance. The language should be tightened to the outcomes:
o 2.1a “Amend Inclusionary Ordinance to ensure requirements provide maximum number of affordable units or deeper levels of affordability without behind a barrier to housing development by [DATE]”
o 2.1b “Amend Inclusionary Ordinance with programs and incentives to increase rental and home ownership opportunities for workforce housing by [DATE]” o 2.2a “ Amend Inclusionary Ordinance to update affordable housing options such as provided offsite or incentivizing land dedication by [DATE]
• 2.2g - Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Allow 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use by December 2024” (new date suggested). • 2.3a and 2.3b lack specific commitments and action language related to Density Bonus Ordinance as it exceeds State Density Bonus law.
• 2.4b, 2.4c and 2.6 include the vague language of “on an ongoing basis” and “whenever possible” which are difficult to ascertain for success.
• 2.4a, 2.4b and 2.5a “coordinate” or “partner” with others to an unspecified outcome or milestone with date.
Policy 3 - Special Needs and Homelessness
• 3.1a, 3.1c, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.2c, 3.3a, 3.3g, 3.3h, 3.3i, include the vague language of “on an ongoing basis” and “when possible” which are difficult to ascertain for success. • 3.1c, 3.2a, 3.3c, 3.3e, 3.4a 3.5a “Work with” , “Assist” ,“coordinate with”, “actively seek partnerships”, “continue support for”, “continue to collaborate” to unspecified outcomes or milestones with date.
Policy 4 - Housing Assistance
• 4.1a, 4.2b “Continue to contract…”, “Continue to support….” with unspecified outcomes or milestones with date.
Policy 5 - Neighborhood Vitality
• 5.5b - Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Implement new anti-displacement measures by September 2025”
• 5.3a, 5.3b includes the vague language of “Explore…” and “Seek out…” which are • difficult to ascertain for success.
• 5.1a, 5.2a, 5.4c, 5.5a “Continue to implement”, “Continue to administer….”, “Continue to support….”with unspecified outcomes or milestones with date.
22.161
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Additional Feedback on the Public Review Draft City Response • Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Amend Zoning Ordinance to increase base zoning consistent with SB10 by December 2026.”
• 6.2c - Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Amend Zoning Ordinance to expand housing opportunities in single-family zones by December 2026.” (proposed new date) • 6.2d - Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Amend Zoning Ordinance to increase base zoning consistent with SB10 by December 2026.”
• 6.1e, 6.2f, 6.4a, 6.4c, 6.4e include the vague language of “on an ongoing basis” which is difficult to ascertain for success.
• 6.1a, 6.1b “Coordinate”, “Support…”,“Provide support”, “Continue to administer….”, “Continue to support….”with unspecified outcomes or milestones with date. • 6.2c and 6.2d - these similar initiatives for single-family and high resource areas should have synchronized dates of 2026.
• 6.2e - local SB 9 ordinance to align with state law should be sooner than 2027 • 6.4a - investment in “areas of highest need” can spur displacement, this objective should include antidisplacement efforts • 6.4b - Time frame should be tightened to the action phrase “Amend the City’s Relocation Ordinance by September 2025”
Policy 7 - Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship • 7.1a, 7.1b, 7.1c, 7.2b, 7.3a, 7.3b, 7.4b, include the vague language of “on an ongoing basis” with unspecified milestones with date.
• We appreciate the reference to the Climate Action Plan in 7.2a, which has specific measures and actions.
22.162
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Comment Letters
In addition to comments submitted through the online feedback form, comments were also submitted through letters sent directly to the City. These are included in Appendix A but have not been included in this response table given length. All letters which included language revisions were reviewed and applied throughout the appropriate Chapters and Appendices. The City has read through each letter and taken all comments into consideration. Listed below are some of the specific changes that were made to the Housing Element based on the public letters received:
• Communities Organized for Relational Power in Action (COPA) comments The City coordinated early with COPA during the creation of the Public Review Draft and added a few policies at that time to specifically address COPA comments, including Objective 5.5b relating to anti-retaliation and Objective 6.4f relating to cost reductions for rental applications. Additional changes include:
- 2.2d support for renter protections
- 6.2c City working with Council Subcommittee on further ideas to expand housing opportunities in single-family zones. - 4.1a Increased metric from 70 to 100 (it was 50 in first public review draft and 70 in first HCD draft so it was increased again). Also added in language to support “culturally responsive outreach”. - 5.4a added “culturally responsive outreach” and “work with community members to promote increased participation”. • April 2023 Santa Cruz YIMBY comments:
o Additional calculations were performed for the density assumptions made on the average square footage of residential developments using FAR and the density calculations used in the Sites Inventory were confirmed. o The pipeline projects table was revised to refine the project affordability numbers. o More research and refinement were made for the number of units and affordability level of units on the UCSC campus. o Additional policies were added to consider workforce housing – see Objectives 2.1b and 3.7b. • MidPen Housing coordination
Changes were made to the pipeline projects table to refine the project unit affordability numbers. • Housing Choices comments
The policies and objectives were strengthened and refined to be more concrete since the Public Review Draft.
22.163
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
2. HCD Technical Assistance Public Review – July 2023
Revisions to the Santa Cruz Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, based on Technical Assistance provided by HCD mid-way through the review of the first draft, were made available to the community from July 18 to July 25, 2023. Commenters were provided with a City email address to submit comments on each chapter and appendix. The following provides all the comments received, including notes as to how each comment has been addressed.
Feedback on the July 2023 Technical Assistance Re-Submittal City Response Chapter 2: Policy Plan
Policy 1.7 - Meaningful public engagement. This is a real concern when many involved community members see over and over how the city claims to seek public input about various projects and plans, yet ignores what a sizeable percentage of people say. The city needs to do better! Comment has been noted.
It is important that the city make efforts to convert or re-purpose existing buildings for housing. It is much better for the environment and perhaps decreases displacement of residents.
Comment has been noted.
Objective 1.3b - mentions annual meetings with development community and Planning staff. For the sake of transparency, these meetings should be observable, so that the public doesn't think there are "back room deals" being negotiated.
Staff will have focus group conversations as needed
with a variety of groups.
There is also mention that the "city will utilize lobbyists" and affordable housing advocates. I'm not sure what "lobbyists" means as far as the city spending money to hire people for that purpose.
Policy 2.2, and specifically Objective 2.2d specify what the City will utilize lobbyists for:
-Policy 2.2 calls for the City to utilize lobbyists to
promote affordable housing development.
-Objective 2.2d. Direct City lobbyists to concentrate on state and federal legislation that would help fund
affordable housing. Lobby the state and national
governments for affordable housing funding yearly
prior to legislative sessions and on an ongoing basis.
It has been documented that many families with children cannot find adequate housing. Yet so much of the proposed housing is SROs, studios, and 1-bedroom units. More 2- and 3-bedroom units should be included in subsidized housing projects. (Yes, "subsidized" is the reality.) Most state and federal grants require that half of the
units are two- and three-bedroom units. In other
instances, Planning will not require developers to build larger unit sizes if they do not wish. Doing so otherwise would be considered an impediment to housing.
However, the City supports family-size units. Policy 3.1 seeks to promote the development of affordable
housing for families. In addition, the City’s inclusionary ordinance requires inclusionary units to reflect the mix of unit sizes in a new housing development.
22.164
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the July 2023 Technical Assistance Re-Submittal City Response Though it is suggested that these small and very small apartments would be desired by seniors, students, etc., I really question whether seniors would be content living in what could essentially be a college dorm. Seniors (55 and older) should be able to have the opportunity to live in an allsenior community, like La Posada, at "affordable" levels.
Objective 5.3b. calls for the City to seek out funding to help seniors age in place, which would provide
opportunity for seniors to reside in a variety of housing types. Policy 6.3 and Objective 6.3a seek to support the development and availability of housing to seniors and
do not restrict such potential housing to small
apartments.
UCSC MUST be legally required to provide housing for a greater percentage of students, faculty staff, before being allowed to increase enrollment. On campus, preferably.
The City is seeking to have UCSC on campus housing
development tied to enrollment increased. While the
City does not have authority over UCSC or housing
development on its campus, the document contains
several policies and objectives to promote student
housing development on campus, including Policy 3.5,
Objective 3.5a, and Objective 3.5b.
2.6a - Include projected water use for all housing in the Housing Element. Yes, we residents should be able to see these figures.
The housing element sites inventory is used to show
that there is capacity for housing in the City that
meets the needs of RHNA targets. It does not dictate
housing development. These sites have already been
planned for housing under the existing Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan. These sites have
already been considered in water use projections.
Additionally, new infill development is often more
water efficient than the use it is replacing.
Include child care facilities in EVERY housing project. Why were none included in Pacific Station North and South? The Library-Mixed Use project of 124 apartments will only provide child care for 16 children.
The City cannot require child care facilities in all
developments; comment has been noted.
Though the Housing Element mentions "neighborhood vitality," and protecting existing neighborhoods, that seems to conflict with several planned changes. I think it is important to continue the requirement that ADUs have an owner living on the property, who can be held accountable for tenant disruptions to the neighborhood. Do not eliminate the owner occupancy requirement!
Related to Goal 5. Comment noted.
I also am concerned that supportive housing (above 50 units) can be approved "by right", with ministerial approval.
Related to Objective 3.4d. Comment has been noted.
I wish the Housing Element more strongly outlined opportunities for renters to purchase or rent-toown homes. They could build up equity rather than just paying landlords. With such a high This is not feasible; however, non-profit organizations may buy properties and implement their own rent-tobuy program.
22.165
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the July 2023 Technical Assistance Re-Submittal City Response percentage of renters, we are cultivating a transient population of people who really don't have a stake in our community.
I was happy to read that the city is seeing to become an AARP Age-Friendly Community (6.3c).
Recent news stories report that our local population of seniors is growing, and they will need city services, city infrastructure designed with them in mind (parks, public transportation, etc.).
Comment has been noted.
Appendix E: Housing Constraints
Also important was something in the South of Laurel Area Plan - #8 - "Use the existing heritage trees as a basis for streetscape design." There are far too many Heritage Trees being destroyed in this city. Respect the Heritage Tree Ordinance and inform architects that they must design projects to accommodate the heritage trees on the site.
Comment has been noted.
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory
Do you know why UCSC numbers were changed/revised from 1900 to only 300? That seems like a large manipulation/change or miscalculation by~84%. Where did all the potential units go? Thank you in advance for any response.
UCSC is still planning to construct the same amount of
housing, and the City is supportive of UCSC
constructing student housing. However, the state is
very particular about what kind of housing counts
toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
numbers and doesn’t count student dorms, for
example. The City’s Housing Element must
demonstrate that we have adequate capacity to build
the number of units required by our RHNA allocation
(and this does not reflect the reality of what will be
built at UCSC, which is considerably more). So, we
decided to take a conservative approach and include
only those units in the UCSC development pipeline that
we felt confident the State would count toward the
RHNA requirement (e.g. not a dorm or other nonstandard housing). That is why we reduced the number between the original draft that went out for public
review in March and the draft that was submitted to
HCD in May. The number stayed the same in the
revisions that were released for public review last
week.
22.166
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the July 2023 Technical Assistance Re-Submittal City Response That being said, we acknowledge that housing comes
in an array of types, and that is why one of our
proposed policies in the Housing Element (policy 1.4c)
is to lobby the state to allow non-standard housing
types to be counted toward RNHA numbers.
Somewhere in the document it said we have to have enough housing "for everyone." That will NEVER be possible, as Santa Cruz is a desirable coastal community. It will always be more expensive to live here.
Comment has been noted.
The document should not downplay the poor service level of our Metro bus system. It must be greatly improved if it will actually decrease single car trips. Not everyone can ride a bike or e-bike.
Traffic will just get intolerably worse for everyone with the addition of thousands of more residents.
Comment has been noted.
22.167
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
3. HCD Letter Revisions Public Review – August 2023 After revising the draft Santa Cruz Public Review Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element in response to formal review comments received from HCD on August 8, 2023, the revised draft was made available to the community from August 21 to August 28, 2023. Commenters were provided with a City email address to submit comments on each chapter and appendix. The following provides all the comments received, including notes as to how each comment has been addressed.
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
Chapter 2: Policy Plan
Objective 1.1d enforces unit replacement requirements and should include monitoring unit loss due to consolidation, e.g. the conversion of multi-unit homes into single-family. This could include penalties, such as ADU requirements or other fees.
This is already required to comply with Government Code section 66300 as 1.1d states. A housing project covered under the replacement and no net loss requirements is a property with 2 or more units.
O bjective 1.2a adopts an EIR for the Downtown Expansion Plan. The City should consider more units in the Downtown Expansion Plan to account/prepare for future RHNA cycles.
Noted. Staff will continue to consider future capacity in its planning work.
O bjective 1.3g is a good addition - we hope that this allows the City to increase the number of units in the Downtown Expansion Plan for future cycles.
Noted
O bjective 1.5a includes a review of ADU development and we are pleased to see the added timeline commitment of 18 months. There is still an opportunity for a menu of actions that would facilitate development if it lags such as:
○ Allowing multiple ADUs
○ Developing a concession program
○ Other financial or technical incentives
Objective 1.5a was updated to reflect this comment.
O bjective 1.5e could be tightened to “Amend ADU owner occupancy regulations by May 2024.”
Objective 1.5e was updated. It will be updated again before final certification, given that the fate of AB 976 (Ting) will be known at that time. Given community interest in this topic, outreach will be conducted.
O bjective 1.6a related to the Planned Development Permit process could be incorporated into a local density bonus program.
Noted
In Objective 2.1a, we suggest this be moved earlier than 2026. Any amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance will take some time given the level of market study and outreach needed so the City cannot move this date earlier at this time.
Note too that the state’s recent changes to allow a 50% Density Bonus have improved the outcomes of the City’s current
Inclusionary Ordinance related to depth of affordability because developers will now also provide very low income units in addition to low income units so that they can meet the City’s inclusionary ordinance of 20% and receive the full 50% state density bonus.
22.168
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
O bjective 2.2c explores additional funding for affordable housing, but only focuses on the potential ballot measure. This could be expanded to a menu of options - e.g. parcel tax tied to upzoning land, impact fees for single-family projects.
Parcel tax would also require a ballot measure. Updated the text from “ballot measure” to “ballot measures” to show that multiple options may be explored. The “such as” language leaves open the possibility of a variety of options.
We appreciate the target number of VLI units in O bjective 2.2f. Consider a menu of options for “facilitate”, e.g. ministerial approval, subsidies such as land or funding.
For this particular objective, the small-units allowances themselves facilitate VLI and LI production. Other objectives speak to further facilitation through various means, such as ministerial approval.
We like the newly added O bjective 2.2i! There could be an added objective that is not specific to faith-based organizations to encourage ALL developers to consider Santa Cruz, i.e “why Santa Cruz is a good place to build affordable housing”.
Noted . Other objectives speak to the City’s outreach to the development community on at least an annual basis.
As part of Policy 2.4, we still support establishing a Community Opportunity to Purchase program to give qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer or refusal to purchase certain properties offered for sale in the City. We also still support establishing a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase program to help prevent displacement, empower tenants, and preserve affordable housing when the owner decides to sell.
Noted
We appreciate the change to O bjective 2.5a. This is another opportunity to add a menu of options for assistance for at-risk units, or those with expiring covenants.
This objective seeks to preserve at-risk units and to coordinate with affected tenants in advance. Assistance objectives are included elsewhere in the policy chapter.
We appreciate the tightening of language in O bjective 3.1b. This is an opportunity for a menu of options for how the city will “Assist in the development...”, e.g. financial assistance? Land? Objective 3.1b updated to include menu of options.
We recommend a program that identifies city land and adopts ministerial approval for permanent supportive, transitional housing or homeless shelters or homes accessible to persons with disabilities.
Policy 3.3e supportsthe development of supportive housing and homelessness services at the Coral Street campus, part of which is on City-owned land.
O bjective 3.1c is a good program! Fair Housing Act/reasonable accommodations update should be earlier than January 2025
The City’s Code currently includes reasonable accommodations under 24.12.120 and follows the Fair Housing Act. The updates proposed in 3.1c would include any additional changes beyond the current complying program or other clarifications desired.
Objectives 3.2a, 3.3g, 3.3h and 3.3i lack milestones with dates. 3.2a is ongoing and will be effectuated on a case-by-case basis as projects and/or funding opportunities are available.
References to Childcare Impact Fee and Children’s Fund were added.
3.3g - updated.
3.3h - use of City’s lobbyists added to increase specificity. This is ongoing.
3.3i – this is an ongoing part of the City’s daily operations.
22.169
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
Few objectives in Policy 3 related to Homelessness focus on developing housing. It is unfortunate to have Objective 3.3j about unsanctioned camps included.
The draft has several policies regarding extremely low income housing, supportive housing, etc. that are not in this section specifically but would still apply. Note the “relevant policies” line below each objective whenever a policy is linked with other policies and there is overlap.
3.3j is based on policies and goals of the Homelessness Response Action Plan, which is a regional effort supported by the City. 3.3j is an objective specifically regarding mitigation of any environmental degradation caused by unsanctioned camps.
This includes litter removal and cleaning of public water sources.
The City believes everyone is entitled to healthy and clean public spaces.
O bjective 3.3l low-barrier navigation centers update to state requirements should be earlier than June 2025
Noted.
We are happy to see the ministerial approval added to O bjective 3.4d and recommend a lower threshold than 50 units.
Ministerial approval for qualifying AB 2162 Supportive Housing project of 50 units or fewer is already required by the state.
Council has consistently deemed qualifying projects above 50 units as by-right as well.
O bjective 3.5a does not include how the city will facilitate development of units on campus. Coordination with UCSC executives and staff occurs regularly, and the objective has been updated.
O bjective 3.5b (legislation) is vaguely worded to “Support state legislation…” which repeats from the 5th cycle. Note that as recently as 2022, the City formally expressed opposition to proposed legislation intended to facilitate more housing at UCSC.
Noted.
The City could develop a Student Housing Overlay that builds on their Flexible Density Units (FDUs) and encourages housing for students in the city.
Noted
Objective 5.1a, 5.4c, 5.5a lack milestones with dates. 5.1a is daily and ongoing
5.4c – updated.
5.5a is ongoing.
Objective 5.2a What options is the City considering? Objective 5.2a updated Policy 6.1 focuses on Housing Vouchers with a high reliance on the Housing Authority. The City should consider a city-sponsored voucher program using funding such as CDBG and HOME grants.
The City applies for and receives a lot of CDBG and HOME funding which is uses towards assistance programs. Note Policy
3.6 and Objective 3.6a.
Objective 6.1a could include a menu of options for the landlord incentives. Objective 6.1a updated O bjective 6.2d The time frame for zoning amendments to expand housing opportunities in single family zones should be sooner than 2029. This initiative for single-family and high resource areas should be synchronized with the Objective 6.2e date of 2026.
Objective 6.2d timeline has been moved up to January 2029.
Staff has applied for the REAP 2.0 grant to fund this project and
22.170
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
if that grant award is accepted, this project completion will be moved up to 2026.
Objective 6.2f should also include updating the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Many of these objectives include LCP amendments and when necessary, the City will update the LCP accordingly.
Objective 6.3a the initial milestone of listing properties should be earlier than June 2027. Noted O bjective 6.4b should be tightened to the action phrase “Amend the City’s Relocation Ordinance by September 2025”
Objective 6.4b updated
Objective 7.1a, 7.1b, 7.1c, 7.2b, 7.3a, 7.3b, 7.4b lack milestones with dates. 7.1a, 7.1b, and 7.1c relate to ongoing efforts by the Water Department and Public Works Department.
7.2b Milestones and dates outlined in other City documents related to sustainability such as the Climate Action Plan.
7.3a Implementing the General Plan’s vision regarding transit oriented development is an ongoing effort.
7.3b this is an ongoing effort
7.4b Updated
The City should add the University to their commitment to provide infrastructure in Objective
7.1c. The City has been and continues to be a significant barrier to development at UCSC, as evidenced by past and ongoing litigation.
Various objectives speak to providing infrastructure for residential projects. As noted previously, the City’s goal in the current litigation is to require UCSC to provide housing on their campus in conjunction with student enrollment growth. The water litigation is about where UCSC grows and the required process associated with that growth.
O bjective 7.3b promotes bikeable/walkable neighborhoods, but with few specifics. This could reference current ongoing efforts such as updating the City’s Active Transportation Plan.
Objective 7.3b updated
Tr ansit Oriented Development and Alternative Modes of Transportation. We still encourage a program to look at increased density along the Coastal Rail Trail, with a focus on station locations to ensure rail service is feasible.
Noted. The Regional Transportation Commission’s 2015 Rail Transit Feasibility Study identified 10 years of implementation steps. Steps identified for the first five years have not commenced, so the timing of the rail service will be beyond the timeframe of this upcoming Housing Element Cycle. The
General Plan action LU4.2.3 calls for preparation of a Rail Transit Land Use Plan, which the City will undertake in the future after the RTC planning is complete and adopted.
Appendix A: Community Engagement
Regarding Community Engagement and the results of the survey noted in Appendix A: (sorry if I am mis-reading the numbers shown in the tables of survey results) Regarding the survey, comment has been noted. The total of 421 is the number of survey responses from the online survey as described on page A-3.
22.171
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
Survey responses of 421 individuals in a city of 61,000 should not be the basis of conclusions drawn by the Planning Dept. In looking further at the tables/charts in the Appendix, I cannot tell if 421 is the total number of survey par tic ipants fr om all the foc us gr oups listed.
The chart labelled "Priority Housing Types" shows 180 participants expressed a preference for For-Rent Apartments, and 286 for "Affordable Housing." Did respondents even have a clear understanding of how "affordable housing" is defined? Unless the survey specified how much an individual or family had to earn (AMI) and how much the "affordable" units rent for (or anticipated to rent for in currently and future planned projects), people have vague, "feel good" ideas of what "affordable" means in reality.
And although only 36 responders chose "For Sale Condos" in chart #2, in chart #3 there were many in favor of "Apartments/Condos." "1-3 story apartment condos" showed 232 in favor.
It is unclear to me whether "Townhomes" would be for rent or for sale.
Regarding affordable units, comment has been noted.
Appendix D: Fair Housing Assessment
Regarding the language in Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: I would like to see evidence that densification of single-family neighborhoods in the High Opportunity zones will result in better economic, health or educational outcomes or opportunities for residents of multi-unit apartments built in those neighborhoods. It will not "achieve racial equity" simply because the proportion of residents of different races or ethnic backgrounds is not "equal" in Santa Cruz. I was under the impression that there are no "bad" city schools, that there are parks and open spaces within a short distance of every neighborhood, and that there are no particularly toxic, industrial environments that impact Santa Cruzans in other areas of the city.
Kids in Beach Flats attend the same schools as kids in the single-family neighborhoods of the westside (Bayview Elementary, Mission Hill Middle School, Santa Cruz High). Therefore the city seems to meet the AFFH Principles and doesn't have to "relieve disparities" beyond what state law already allows (4 units on a single-family lot). More units than that, up to 10, as suggested by planners at the Aug. 22 City Council meeting as part of their application for a REAP grant, as made possible in Portland, Minneapolis, and other larger cities, would be very disruptive to those who live in single-family neighborhoods.
Comment has been noted
Outreach and Engagement, the state's letter states "In addition, the element should address the number of fair housing complaints and the characteristics of complaints..." How many complaints has the city received in the past several years? About which element addressed by the AFFH goals?
Page D-66 was revised to note that there were no fair housing complaints in the City in the last Housing Element cycle.
Local Data and Knowledge: "The element must include local data, knowledge and other relevant factors to supplement the analysis...The element could utilize knowledge from local and regional advocates..." There is a range of "advocates" who have different visions of how the city should grow/change/develop. There are groups like Our Downtown Our Future, Comment has been noted.
22.172
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
Campaign for Sustainable Transportation, youth climate action advocates, the Sierra Club, etc.
To my knowledge, the city has not reached out to those groups to get their input. I suspect they have connected with YIMBY, a well-funded organization, though.
Housing Conditions: It must include data on condition of the existing housing stock and estimate number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. What are the conditions of housing in the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean St that are in poor condition? Are landlords held responsible to make repairs? (Perhaps undocumented renters are hesitant to complain, but that's not something the Planning Department is required to address.) Information added to page D-44 indicates that code compliance staff estimates the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean Street
neighborhoods have the highest rates of poor housing
conditions. If a complaint is received and verified, then the property owner would be held responsible for repairs through the code compliance process.
Farmworkers: Given the goal of reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled and assuming there are not many farms within the city of Santa Cruz, but rather in south county and Davenport that employ farmworkers, wouldn't it make more sense to build additional housing closer to where the farmworkers worked? Of course they should have access to good schools, health care, parks, etc.
Pages D-64 to D-65 discuss farmworker housing needs in Santa Cruz and the greater region and references several policies that would target special needs groups such as farmworkers within the City. Comment regarding proximity of farmworker
employment has been noted.
Appendix E: Housing Constraints
Infrastructure: ..."it must also clarify whether sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) can accommodate the regional housing need..." Though the city may be contemplating desal or other water treatment options to accommodate thousands of more residents, there is no guarantee that city residents/voters will approve of that.
As described on page E-64, the City’s current Urban Water Management Plan confirms that the City is able to provide water capacity to accommodate the regional housing need. The plan provides a variety of options to augment water supply, most of which would not require voter approval.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: "The element should clarify shelters are permitted without discretionary action in a zone that allows a residential use..." This will likely meet with opposition and the Planning Department should not think it has the power to force such uses on the residents of this community. The same is true of Transitional and Supportive Housing in residential areas.
State law AB 2339 requires emergency shelters to be permitted without discretionary action in a zone that allows residential use. Pages E33-34 clarify that emergency shelter regulations are consistent with the state law in that they are allowed in the Public Facilities district, which allows farmworker housing, and emergency shelter requirements in the zoning ordinance are objective standards.
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory
Realistic Capacity: "The element must provide support...demonstrating how the City arrived at these assumptions for realistic capacity." What city planners think is "realistic capacity," many residents see as over-development that will result in poorer quality of life, traffic, water rationing, need for more police, more schools, more medical providers.
Comment has been noted.
Revisions were made to Page G-25 and Table G-9 on Pages G25 and G-26 to remove 100 percent realistic capacity assumption and replace it with an 80 percent assumption. This change is reflected in the sites list as well.
22.173
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the August 2023 Re-Submittal City Response
Analysis was also completed to determine the likelihood of non-residential development on mixed use infill sites. This analysis is reflected on Page G-25.
Additional Feedback
I made an effort to model population of City as a function of UCSC in the attached .xlsx spreadsheet (i pasted a screenshot below).
Historical City population and # of UCSC students is fairly well known.
I'm still looking for consistent data on the historical number of employees at UCSC. I'm currently using 0.4 * the number of students.
# of CITY residents who provide services to UCSC folks is just a guess, but heavily influences the result.
Changing this number above 115% reduces non-ucsc population to near 0 by 2040 ! This data is particularly hard to gather, due to privacy about where folks work and live.
The bar graph on the right will change accordingly as you experiment; red is total population and the green is the non-ucsc population part of total.
See related spreadsheet image below. Comment has been
noted.
22.174
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
22.175
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
4. COPA and Santa Cruz YIMBY Comments
The City also separately received comments from two organizations, COPA (Communities Organized for Relational Power in Action) and Santa Cruz YIMBY, between April and July 2023. City Staff and members of the City Council Housing Element Subcommittee meet with each of these groups to discuss their comments and provide responses. The responses to each group are shown in the following tables.
COPA Letter Comment (4.24.23) Responses and Section Reference Goal 2: Affordable Housing
2.1a
COPA endorses maintaining the city’s current 20% inclusionary ordinance.
Noted
2.2c
COPA endorses the proposal for a city bond measure to finance the subsidization of housing construction for greater percentages of below-market-rate units. COPA stands ready to engage in the policy discussions on this concept and participate in the necessary outreach and organizing to secure passage of such a ballot measure.
Noted. 2.2c language was changed to reflect general
support for ballot measure rather than City bond measure.
2.2d
COPA encourages City lobbyists to work on state legislation to ease pressure on renters. We would like to see state legislation to eliminate application fees, place a cap on security deposits, and provide right to-counsel for tenants facing eviction.
Noted
2.2g
Pt. 1: COPA strongly supports the policy of “by right” approval for housing projects that provide 100% affordable units. The City successfully exercised this policy for COPA-member Calvary Episcopal Church for its 60 units currently under construction on its parking lot.
Pt. 2 In addition, COPA urges the City to expand areas of the City that are eligible for by-right approval by applying the standard created by the State under AB2011 to all new development (both residential and commercial) to ensure that new projects have the benefit of streamlined entitlement approval while ensuring local workers are paid fair wages with health benefits.
Pt. 1: Noted. The City does use a by right approval process for 100% affordable housing projects that qualify as
supportive housing.
Pt. 2: Will not consider ministerial by right approval Citywide through expansion of AB 2011 to residential zones at this time.
2.3 Pt. 1 COPA endorses the use of density bonuses to encourage greater number of units.
Furthermore we encourage city staff to explore further incentivization of density by offering additional subsidy to cover additional construction of below-market-rate units, which could be financed with proceeds of a city-wide bond measure.
Pt. 2 COPA recommends the elimination of density limits. There are presently no limits on density for Single Room Occupancy units (SRO’s) and single-family homes, and this only incentivizing these housing types over the others.
Pt. 1: Will not consider additional subsidy at this time. The City does not subsidize for profit development, but existing incentives can be utilized. However, 2.1a will require review of the Inclusionary Ordinance for additional ways to meet that requirement and greater flexibility may incentivize production of more affordable units.
Pt. 2 There is no density limit in all parts of the City controlled by Floor Area Ratio (FAR) rather than
22.176
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
COPA Letter Comment (4.24.23) Responses and Section Reference development units per acre (DU/AC). This includes all the downtown and all mixed-use areas such as the corridors.
Planning is also seeking to apply for a grant to plan to limit size of single family and allowing additional housing types (such as fourplexes) in single-family zoned areas.
2.4c
COPA recommends the City adopt two policy tools to facilitate the acquisition of existing properties for conversion to deed-restricted units. We urge the city to create a Community Opportunity to Purchase Program. The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) gives qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer, and/or the right of first refusal to purchase certain properties offered for sale in the City; and the creation of a TOPA – Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, TOPA, or “Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act”, is an antidisplacement housing policy that gives tenants options to have secure housing when the property they rent goes up for sale, while also preserving affordable housing.
Not considering COPA And TOPA at this time. This program would require extensive new staff resources and funding.
While this program has benefits, the costs associated with it are high. Based on initial analysis of other Citys’ programs, the cost/benefit ratio would be much worse than other
potential programs so it would not be an efficient use of City resources. The only Cities that have such a program are large and highly resourced. The program comes with other potential issues such as significantly slowing the real estate transaction process. This could impact owners, sellers, and buyers, especially smaller scale “mom and pop” owners.
These challenges have made it difficult to implement
elsewhere and is not something the City wishes to pursue at this time.
Goal 3: Special Needs and Homeless
3.2 Given the high degree of rent-burdened families in our community, COPA strongly endorses the policy to include childcare centers within housing construction to increase the opportunities for affordable childcare in our community.
Noted
3.3 COPA strongly supports the partnerships to provide the Continuum of Care for homeless individuals.
Noted
Goal 4: Housing Assistance
4.1a
COPA endorses the continuance of the security deposit loan program in partnership with the County Housing Authority, however, the program delivery needs improvement to really be effective. The program is not well publicized and the communication, particularly in Spanish, is confusing. COPA recommends the program be changed to allow an applicant to pre-qualify for the The metric of 50 households was increased to 100
households. While the City and Housing Authority will seek to assist as many households as possible, as a minimum
goal, 100 households is more reasonable based on recent assistance trends. Added language “culturally responsive outreach” to the objective as well.
22.177
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
COPA Letter Comment (4.24.23) Responses and Section Reference loan so a tenant can respond quickly once they secure a unit to rent. In a tight rental market, decisions are made
within hours and a multi-day, multi-step approval process has discouraged applicants from even trying to apply for this assistance. COPA also recommends greater funds for rental assistance and broader eligibility. The metric of “50 households” over the Cycle period is too low to be meaningful. We suggest a metric that reflects the portion of households that are at highest risk of housing instability illustrated in Table C-18 that reports 3,155 households spend more than 50% of their income on housing. Assuming 25% of these households may encounter an emergency where they may not be able to pay rent in a given month, a metric of 800 households would be more appropriate.
Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality
5.2b
COPA has found that many tenants are too fearful to report unsafe and illegal living conditions.
They are not aware of the law or their rights and the responsibilities of the landlord to provide safe and healthy living conditions. We strongly endorse ‘expanded outreach’ on rental inspection program and code enforcement by working with community groups like COPA.
Noted
5.4a
COPA applauds the City for recognizing the need for targeted outreach to renters in the neighborhoods South of Laurel St, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean. It is important this outreach be done on evenings and weekends and in the Spanish language.
Noted. Added language “culturally responsive outreach” to the objective as well.
5.5a
Pt. 1 COPA strongly endorses this policy to “protect susceptible populations while improving infrastructure, resources and access to affordable units.”
Additionally, COPA strongly recommends the City work toward a comprehensive set of policies that would prevent displacement and provide stronger renter protections and relief from the high rent-burdens many experience in Santa Cruz. COPA proposes the following ideas:
a. Eliminate application fees
b. Cap security deposits to be a % of the rent or equivalent to one month’s rent only. c. Improve security deposit loan programs by pre-qualifying tenants before apartment search d. Increase legal assistance funding for more attorneys. There is an urgent need for greater access to free, bilingual legal assistance and “affirmative representation” for retaliation cases, and for displacement cases to be pursued. More funds for Tenant Sanctuary and California Rural Legal Assistance is need to increase staffing hours and hiring of attorneys. No tenant has the funds to pursue a case of retaliation for example.
Pt. 1 Noted.
a. Not feasible at this time. Will continue to work
with the Housing Authority through Objectives
2.4a, 6.1b, 6.1c, 6.4f and consider this or other
ways to reduce/eliminate fees.
b. State law allows 2 months and we cannot be below
that. Looking into whether we can make that a
maximum.
c. Noted. Covered by Objectives 4.1a and 6.2b
d. Noted. Covered by Objective 6.3b
e. Noted. Covered by Objectives 4.1a, 5.4a, 5.5c,
6.3b, 6.4d
f. Not considering this at this time. This was
previously contemplated when the rent control
22.178
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
COPA Letter Comment (4.24.23) Responses and Section Reference e. Proactive tenant outreach and education programs to explain rights, assistance programs. f. Rental Registry to provide accurate data on rental market trends. g. Increase funding for rental assistance, possibly as a portion of Transient Occupancy Tax for renters who live and work in Santa Cruz as a way to support the hospitality workforce and prevent them from leaving the City.
h. Partnership with District Attorney and/or the County Public Defender to enforce existing local and state civil codes to uphold tenant protections.
i. Research models that allow rent with the option to buy for condos and townhomes. measure was being considered and did not receive
support.
g. Noted. Covered by Objective 6.1b. Looking into
whether there can be a workforce preference.
h. Outside of City purview. Not considering it at this
time.
i. Not feasible at this time. Financing models do not
support mixed ownership projects.
Goal 6: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
6.1c
COPA endorses the policy of coordinating with the Housing Authority to pursue more funding for housing vouchers and the removal of barriers to utilize housing vouchers.
Noted
6.3b
COPA strongly endorses the need for increased funding of bilingual legal assistance and outreach for tenants.
Noted
Goal 7: Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship COPA strongly supports policies to “Support transit-oriented development and non-motorized transportation.” and believes that the urban compact form of development will aid in achieving this goal.
COPA recommends the City implement a policy that affirms support for preference in leasing of new and existing affordable units that prioritize people who work in the community. Because such preferences get people closer to where they work, they have the added public benefit of not only ensuring that local workers get access to affordable housing opportunities but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic by reducing worker commutes to jobs in the City of Santa Cruz. Data analysis must be done to ensure that the demographics of the workforce in the target area (city or county) is reflective of the workforce as a whole to ensure no disparate impact is created on a protected class or group.
Such a preference can also be expanded to include not only local workers but also local, lowincome residents in those neighborhoods where low-income residents are at risk of displacement due to gentrification pressures. An example of such a program is the one implemented by the County of Santa Cruz at the 17th and Capitola affordable housing project in Live Oak. Data analysis must be done to ensure that such a preference does not create a disparate impact on a protected Santa Cruz has an existing local preference program. City Code references the local preference in 24.16.045 (6) & (7).
See below:
6. As consistent with state and federal law, preferences for rental inclusionary units shall be given in the following priority order:
a. Residents of the city of Santa Cruz for at least one year. b. Those employed in the city of Santa Cruz.
c. Residents of the county of Santa Cruz for at least one year.
d. Those employed in the county of Santa Cruz.
7. As consistent with state and federal law, preferences for ownership inclusionary units shall be given in the following priority order:
a. Those who live or work in the city of Santa Cruz.
b. Those who live or work in the county of Santa Cruz.
22.179
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
COPA Letter Comment (4.24.23) Responses and Section Reference group, but neighborhood based, anti-displacement preferences have been successfully implemented across the State in neighborhoods that are classified as “areas of economic distress” and that are home to a disproportionate number of low-income residents that are at risk of displacement.
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory
We would like to see the City identify and include its surface parking lots to be included on the site inventory. The surface parking lots could be reconfigured as housing projects, including parking on the lower levels so as not to lose city-owned parking resources. The downtown mixed use library is a good example of this potential. Parking funds could be used to finance construction (MidPen Housing coordinated a model project with San Mateo).
The City has included all the City-owned sites downtown based viability and feasibility of affordable housing.
The City has an impressive list of pipeline projects. To facilitate the completion of these pipeline projects in an expeditious manner, we urge the City to make a commitment to refrain from lawsuits that would inhibit the University of Santa Cruz to proceed with its student and faculty housing projects.
The City will not commit to refrain from future lawsuits. The only lawsuit between the City and UCSC is the City seeking greater USCS commitments to housing and is not inhibiting housing. Objectives 3.5a and 3.5b continue to support UCSC in its effort to produce housing.
The City could take additional steps to accelerate the pipeline projects by expediting the review process or identifying ways to provide administrative approvals.
The Objective Standards process approved last year
instituted new administrative approvals for multifamily housing. Various policies will continue to seek more
streamlining.
Of the 2492 units proposed, we recommend timelines be established as metrics to encourage a timely review process.
City has timely review timelines established by State law.
Staff added status updates and noted potential constraints is the most recent revision.
It appears that the City does not need to complete any further re-zoning to meet its RHNA target numbers. We suggest the City continue to identify areas that could be re-zoned to further encourage property owners to consider land use for housing.
Noted
YIMBY Comment Letter (7.5.23) Responses and Section Reference Goal 1: Housing Production
It is stated under Policy 1.2, and more fully in Appendix D: Fair Housing Assessment, that most new housing will be concentrated in the central core of the City, meaning along major commercial corridors and on major opportunity sites. With this area receiving over 45% of the new housing, including over 40% of the Very Low and Low-Income sites, we believe that the City should be looking towards additional opportunities to meet AFFH goals, including in majority single-family neighborhoods of other districts.
The downtown area is the most amenity rich part of the City and is the most sustainable area to grow. The Housing
Element does still support densification efforts in lower density areas so there is a reasonable balance of objectives.
Changing the general plan and zoning in areas where SB 10 does not apply is more time consuming and more costly,
particularly as it relates to required CEQA work, which also
22.180
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
YIMBY Comment Letter (7.5.23) Responses and Section Reference We believe the City can and should go further to enable more housing types in its most resource rich neighborhoods. Objective 1.3e intends to utilize SB 10 to increase residential density in transit rich areas, which in Santa Cruz are not high resource. The SB 10 scope should be expanded to include urban infill sites in high resource districts outside of transit rich areas to allow for more affordable housing throughout the City.
can be challenged – leading to more time and cost. Many of the SB 10-eligible areas are in high-opportunity areas, e.g., a large portion of the Upper Westside (1/2 mile in each direction from Bay St.), Lower Westside (1/2 mile from Bay and Mission), and East Side (1/2 mile from various Soquel Ave. stops). These locations provide intensification options that are both in areas of good educational and economic outcomes and locations in close proximity to everyday
needs, like employment, shopping, services, and transit.
However, staff does believe increasing density in single family neighborhoods is important for a variety of reasons, especially AFFH. This is work Planning is hoping to do if it receives REAP 2.0 funding from AMBAG and HCD for the
project noted at the 8/22/23 Council meeting.
Pipeline Projects
A large source of new units for the City during the 6th cycle will be from pipeline projects. For jurisdictions relying heavily on pipeline projects, HCD recommends that “…the element should include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects, including the number of units and affordability (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining entitlements, supporting funding applications, expediting approvals and monitoring of project progress, including rezoning or identification of additional sites, if necessary).” We suggest that the city commit to implementing such a recommendation to facilitate development, such as by proactively monitoring and facilitating post-entitlement developments with technical and/or financial assistance.
Each project has potentially different needs, but policy language was revised to include greater committal to
specific action or provide a list of potential options to consider should the production of housing need promotion.
Revised policies in this vein include 1.3b, 1.5a, 2.2g, 2.2i, and 2.4a,
Mid-Cycle Review.
Pt. 1 We would like to see an objective with a more active mid-cycle review and adjustment. Tying this review to commitments to increase housing production such as rezoning, ADU incentives, or removing development constraints would allow the City to minimize impacts of falling behind in the 6th cycle. Making these commitments specific now would reduce the staff time required to implement mid-cycle.
Pt. 2 As part of the mid-cycle review, the City should create objectives that monitor the progress of pipeline projects. This should include automatic entitlement extensions until midway through the 6th cycle, a commitment to advocate for city-entitled projects to be approved by the Coastal Objective 1.3b calls for at least annual meetings with the development community to understand what changes can
be implemented to improve project feasibility. Objective
1.5a commits to an annual review, not just a mid-cycle
review. Additionally, staff will be revising this policy to include a suite of potential incentives to consider should additional progress in housing production be desired.
Objective 1.1b calls for an annual review of the inventory.
6.2a also calls for annual coordination with the
development community.
22.181
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
YIMBY Comment Letter (7.5.23) Responses and Section Reference Commission, and proactively reaching out to all pipeline projects to confirm that there is still development interest.
Pt. 2 Noted, and some of the objectives, like 1.3b, will naturally work towards these goals.
Objective Standards
The City should expand Objective 1.2b to include a policy that any project found consistent with Objective Standards is placed on the consent agenda for all hearing bodies. Such projects should only be appealable to council if denied by the planning commission, or if the appeal is related to consistency with objective standards. This would greatly increase the incentive for developers to design projects compliant with the standards.
Noted. Objective 1.2b was amended to included language
that Objective Standards supersede subjective ones.
Parking. We are pleased to see that the elimination of parking minimums is intended as a policy objective, however it is not stated as a commitment in objective 1.3c. In the City’s work to achieve this, we believe the elimination of such requirements within a mile walking area of five or more amenities (pharmacies, grocery stores, transit stops, etc), and in very low vehicle travel areas, would be a good intermediate policy steppingstone.
Noted
FAR and Density
Pt. 1 A significant constraint to development of 2+ bedroom units is the units/ acre density requirement, something that does not apply to smaller units such as SROs. In order to increase the number of family sized (2+ bed) units built, this constraint should be removed or significantly modified.
Pt. 2 This should also be addressed by increasing the FAR for projects consisting of 50% or more 2+ bedroom units. This increase should allow the same net number of units as if they were proposed as SROs or a similar unlimited density unit.
Pt. 1 The City has Flexible Density Units (FDUs) which are small units that do not count towards unit/acre density. This can incentivize a developer to build smaller, more naturally affordable units. At up to 650 s.f. in size, FDUs can
accommodate small, 2-bedoorm units which is a real desire for some families., and FDUs can also incentivize
development of larger 2+ bedroom units that are supported by additional FDUs when units/acre densities are met.
Pt. 2 Noted. This is an idea Planning will explore further, especially if the City sees a prevalence of studio and one bedroom projects.
Goal 2: Affordable Housing
Pt. 1 The ordinance options allowing 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use would greatly speed along much needed affordable housing. As such, we urge expedited approval of Objective 2.2g to 2024 or earlier rather than a quarter of the way through the 6th cycle. A commitment to developing or declaring city parking lots downtown surplus by a certain date with the goal of providing affordable housing would also be a valuable policy.
Pt. 2 As part of objective 2.4c, we support establishing a Community Opportunity to Purchase program to give qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer or refusal to purchase Pt. 1 Noted. The City does allow expedited review of 100% affordable currently if it qualifies as supportive housing.
Pt. 2 A COPA or TOPA program will not be considered at this time. See comments on the response letter to COPA under
2.4c above.
22.182
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
YIMBY Comment Letter (7.5.23) Responses and Section Reference certain properties offered for sale in the City. We also support establishing a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase4program to help prevent displacement, empower tenants, and preserve affordable housing when the owner decides to sell.
Goal 3: Special Needs and Homelessness
Pt. 1 Permanent supportive housing is a key solution towards solving homelessness. Policy 3.4 should explicitly indicate equitable distribution (and development potential) of such housing across all districts.
Pt. 2 Persons with disabilities benefit from the development of extremely low- and very lowincome housing. Objective 3.1c falls short of any commitment to develop housing, only to “publicize housing accessible to persons with disabilities”.
Pt. 3 The City should increase incentives for extremely low housing in objectives under Policy 2 - Affordable Housing, such as additional density bonus (Policy 2.3) or modification of the inclusionary ordinance (objective 2.1a) or by-right approval (objective 2.2g) to favor more extremely-low homes
Pt. 1 Noted, and Objective 3.4b was updated.
Pt 2. Noted. Objectives 3.1c and 3.1d were updated, and various objectives were strengthened as it relates to ELI and VLI housing.
Pt. 3 Policy 2.3 and Objectives 2.1a and 2.2g will consider potential ways to incentivize different levels of affordability, including ELI.
The University
Pt. 1 The two objectives related to the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), 3.5a and 3.5b, are vaguely worded to “Continue to collaborate…” and “Support state legislation…” which are repeats from the 5th cycle. Note that as recently as 2022, the City formally expressed opposition to proposed legislation intended to facilitate more housing at UCSC.
Pt. 2 The City has been and continues to be a significant barrier to development at UCSC, as evidenced by past and ongoing litigation6. This is not acknowledged in the constraints portion of the City’s housing element. The city should make a good faith effort to analyze the barriers it presents to housing construction and planning with regards to UCSC and propose programs to mitigate these impacts. The city should commit to providing municipal services to new housing at UCSC and a policy to not sue over housing production on campus or to obstruct UCSC housing projects through other means such as withholding water access via the Local Agency Formation Commission process.
Pt. 1 Noted
Pt. 2 The City’s current LRDP litigation with UCSC is seeking greater housing commitment from UCSC, not to delay
housing. The crux of the LRDP litigation is the City wanting UCSC's planned enrollment increases to be tied to UCSC
constructing new student housing. Doing so would help
protect the City from being impacted by even greater
housing pressures should enrollment be increased without any new student housing development to support it (as is currently possible under UCSC's Long Range Development
Plan).
UCSC has also recently sued the City, arguing that the City was contractually obligated to provide water service to areas outside the City’s existing service area, without UCSC having to go through the appropriate LAFCO approval
process. The trial court agreed with the City. The trial court ruled that the City is not obligated to provide the water service to UCSC outside its service area and that, absent
22.183
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
YIMBY Comment Letter (7.5.23) Responses and Section Reference annexation of the new service area to the City, UCSC is legally required to engage in the LAFCO process before the City provides water service to new areas. As of now, UCSC is free to annex the new service area to the City or go through the appropriate LAFCO process to add areas where it would be served by City water. In addition, UCSC has ample property in its current service area where
development could occur without having to annex or
engage LAFCO for approval.
Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality
Policy 5 opens with the following context: “Quality of life is shaped, in part, by neighborhood conditions in Santa Cruz. As an older, established community, Santa Cruz requires a concerted effort to encourage the maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing and to promote sustainable, livable neighborhoods in the face of increasing density.” We wholly reject the framing that density and sustainable, livable neighborhoods are incompatible. The city should update this language.
Revision made in 7/26/23 submittal to HCD
Goal 6: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Pt. 1 As discussed in our Housing Production section, a majority of new housing is being planned along major corridors. This leaves out many exclusive and high opportunity neighborhoods from producing their fair share of housing. Creation of missing middle housing isn’t mentioned within the policy plan - the City should adapt zoning regulations that would incentivize this form of housing. Examples include reducing minimum lot size, lot width, and parking requirements (kudos to the latter already being included!) We believe the City can and should go further to enable more housing types in its most resource rich neighborhoods. Objective 6.2d should use SB 10 to increase density in R1 districts, not just to allow construction of Flexible Density Units (FDUs). FDUs are a housing type, not a zoning district. The time frame for zoning amendments to expand housing opportunities in single family zones should be sooner than 2029 as proposed in Objective 6.2c.
Pt. 2 Similarly, the City’s deadline for updating the local SB9 ordinance consistent with State Law should be earlier than 2027.
Pt. 3 Policy 6.4 recognizes that displacement may follow new development. Improvements of community assets, as proposed in Objective 6.4a may also result in displacement. This objective should include applicable antidisplacement strategies.
Pt. 1 Staff is seeking to do this work sooner should Planning receive REAP 2.0 competitive funding from AMBAG.
Pt. 2 The City follows state law as required and does have SB 9 guidelines posted. Updating the Ordinance simply to reflect what is already required is not a high priority.
However, should REAP 2.0 grant funding be approved,
Planning will adopt an SB 9 ordinance sooner than 2027, as the project would include developing objective standards for a variety of development in single family
neighborhoods, such as SB 9 projects.
Pt. 3 Noted, and Objective 5.5b on Anti-displacement
polices was strengthened in this revision.
Miscellaneous
22.184
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
YIMBY Comment Letter (7.5.23) Responses and Section Reference Sites Inventory - Small Sites Program
The site inventory identifies a significant number of small parcels for development, many of which are projected to accommodate low income units. Per HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook “A parcel smaller than one half acre is considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households, unless the housing element demonstrates development of housing affordable to lower income households on these sites is realistic or feasible.” The City claims that many of these parcels have development opportunities due to common ownership with adjacent parcels; the Housing Element includes no objectives in the Policy Plan with specific incentives to facilitate consolidation. We recommend an incentive program such as a FAR density bonus for projects which involve small lot consolidation.
Objective 1.1e was added to promote the development of
affordable units on small parcels through lot consolidation and coordination with property owners.
Upzoning Near Potential Light Rail Stations
The RTC has multiple scenarios for a passenger light rail route. In most scenarios stations would be located on the Westside, Bay/California, Downtown, and Seabright. We encourage a program to look at additional density along the Coastal Rail Trail, with a focus on these station locations.
Noted. Transit use is most beneficial when jobs uses are located near stations, not residential.
Tenant Protections
As a majority-renter city, it is important that we have strong tenant protections. There are a number of programs we would like to see implemented or expanded in the City including:
1. Elimination of or cap on rental application fees
2. Creation of a rental registry. This was recently passed by both Salinas and Monterey
3. Local preference for people employed in the county
4. COPA and TOPA programs (see Policy 2 - Affordable Housing)
5. Conduct a disparate impact analysis of non-high(est) resource areas and apply a live-work preference if it matches county demographics
1. Will not be considered at this time, but 6.4f does
call for exploration of a similar objective with
community partners.
2. Will not be considered at this time
3. The City has an existing local preference program.
City Code references the local preference in
24.16.045 (6) & (7).
4. Will not be considered at this time
5. Noted
Need for Active Language, Dates and Measurable Metrics
Objectives/Time frames lack active language, dates, and measurable metrics to determine the success of the objective. Time frames are often a recitation of the process, not a commitment to an outcome
Multiple revisions of this nature were made in the 7/26/23 draft submittal to HCD. Additional edits related to this comment were made in this latest revision as well.
22.185
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
5. HCD Technical Assistance Public Review – October 2023 Revisions to the Santa Cruz Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, based on Technical Assistance provided by HCD mid-way through the review of the second draft, were made available to the community from October 12 to 19, 2023. Commenters were provided with a City email address to submit comments on each chapter and appendix. The following provides all the comments received, including notes as to how each comment has been addressed.
Feedback on the October 2023 Submittal City Response
I live in Deanza and I am a strong proponent for mobile homes for seniors.. as both rental and home ownership. since there are only 3 mobile home parks in city of Santa Cruz, and only for for seniors.. over 55, how is this housing “preserved and sustained without rent control in the city? I have been trying to advocate for this issue for last 1.5 years without a lot of interest but no movement.
can you assist to strengthen the language in element to preserve mobile homes in city for more than moderate plus income persons?
I have a list of recc. That I sent mayor that I can send you too. hopefully it’s a document in process! Policy Objective 6.4e relates to mobile home rent control.
Staff and the Council subcommittee have reviewed this
policy and deemed it sufficient with no further edits needed.
The additional list referred to in the comment is also related to mobile park rent control and is satisfied by the existing policy.
How many additional potential units were created in the City as a result of the General Plan change to use GROSS rather than NET for density calculations?
Which parcels besides our lot at 190 westview court were affected? For instance, 5 additional potential HU's were added to ours.
How many potential HU's IN TOTAL did the city get from this change? I haven't come across a discussion of how this change to the General Plan came about. Scrounging for HU's? imitating another jurisdiction? or something else? I can look harder for a discussion in city docs. Just thought one of you guys might remember the rationale.
I know the City and County struggle to control the growth of UCSC campus. fyi: I've discussed my concerns about the University's displacement of Santa Cruz City residents, with Ian Klein at LAO.
He asked me to send my end-game-santacruz spreadsheet. It will be interesting to get his factchecking and feedback. Maybe i'm exaggerating the effect. I asked Ian if the State/Regents have considered adding a sister campus in Watsonville, and he said this had "come up" but is complex and far future.
And of course that decision should be made in Watsonville.
There was not a change in the City’s General Plan regarding the changes this comment references. However, there was a change to the City’s slope regulations which allow for
additional land area to be considered for housing
development.
UCSC’s growth and process for planning for growth are
separate from the City’s processes. However, as noted in Policy Objective 3.5a, the City will continue to collaborate with UCSC as it relates to housing and growth plans.
COPA Letter 10.19.23
In the early community meetings, COPA leaders asked if it was appropriate to propose tenant support policies in the Housing Element. We were encouraged by your consultants to contribute Additional explanation regarding the rejection of
community/tenant opportunity to purchase programs was
22.186
City of Santa Cruz 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Comments
Feedback on the October 2023 Submittal City Response
our ideas. We held a COPA civic academy attended by 81 residents in February attended by Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Brown. We submitted our suggestions and received your responses, some of which were rejected without any explanation (community or tenant purchase opportunity programs, in effect in some cities) while you explained that some already existed (local preference) which was instructive. You did incorporate two concepts we proposed, to provide “culturally responsive outreach” and increase the goal for the number of people served by the existing security deposit program.
However, we do want to state on the record that overall, we notice a lack of urgency and ambition to stem the tide of homelessness and displacement that faces most Santa Cruz tenants every single day. As the least affordable community in the nation, we expect more can be done to keep families housed through the policy options we proposed and expected more willingness to seriously consider community-generated solutions.
To be specific, regarding Policy 4.1a, we shared how the existing security deposit program is cumbersome, not well marketed, with language barriers and therefore, underutilized. Based on our comments in April, you increased your initial goal from assisting 50 households to 100 over the life of the planning cycle, justified by the “recent assistance trends.” Based on the stories our members have shared, the low number of “recent assistance trends” is more than likely due to the barriers to access the program and its poor design to meet the real-world situation facing tenants in a tight rental market. It is not sufficient to point to a program and check that box if the program itself needs to be evaluated and improved to have real impact for renters to stay housed.
Given the large number of rent-burdened tenants, (over 3000 pay more than half their income on rent), COPA expected to see more commitment to examine and improve this program. added to the responses to the April 24 letter from COPA. This program was rejected at this time based on analysis of
current and proposed programs in other cities and finding the significant cost and staff resources of the program make it infeasible. Should more funding and staff be available, it was also determined that this program does not have a
strong cost/benefit ratio and that other programs with more impact should receive additional resources first.
The City continues to seek additional resources to assist households. Policy 4.1’s metric of 100 households is set at a minimum to establish a commitment based on what is
currently feasible, with the City continuing to work towards assisting more as resources are available. Other actions are included in the Housing Plan for the City to continue seeking funding opportunities to increase City resources.
Based on this comment, Policy objective 4.1a has been
further revised to include the desire to work with community partners to better understand potential barriers to the current program and consider changes based on those
findings. A timeline for these potential changes to be
considered is included.
Another opportunity to take immediate action to prevent tenants from losing their homes, is to provide a more robust system of legal assistance to teach both tenants and landlords the law, their rights and their respective responsibilities. Policy 6.3b states the City will continue to fund bilingual assistance, and let service providers know about funding opportunities, but the goal of reaching 50 households is unambitious and woefully disproportionate to the need. Given that more than 3000 households are rent burdened and housing insecure and the high degree of fear of retaliation or eviction inevitable in a tight rental market, a proactive and larger scale effort to ensure tenant and landlord education is necessary if we are serious about preventing homelessness.
Additional language regarding promotion of bilingual tenant legal services has been added to Policy Objective 5.5c.
Appendix F also provides information on additional
community resources available to residents, including the Community Advocate Resources Team and Continuum of
Care system which provide legal assistance to special
housing needs groups.
In addition, the City currently contracts with California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) and Tenant Sanctuary to provide bilingual fair housing assistance and landlord and tenant legal information.
22.187
Appendix A: Summary of Community Engagement A-11
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
D.Community Letters and Input
This section contains all comments submitted by the community throughout the Housing Element Update process.
22.188
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Santa Cruz
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
April 20, 2023
Re: Santa Cruz’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of Santa Cruz:
Thank you for responding to Sunday’s letter. We rescind our charge of inaccuracy, and appreciate the City’s intent to outpace its RHNA.
We are frustrated, above all, that this happens, and this, and worse, to millions, across the continent. Many of your staff likely suffer, too, from today’s unaffordable housing prices. Our frustration is with that, and with a 40,000-word governing statute that has so far failed to compel equal protection for dense housing throughout entire cities.
Thank you for hearing our frustration. To the extent we are mistaken about the City’s downtown expansion pipeline capacity and commitment to allow 60–111du/ac in the mixed-use zones, we trust the City is drafting its housing element in good faith.
We attribute today’s housing crisis largely to decades of “minimum requirements for lot size and lot widths and maximum construction standards for height, lot coverage, and density.” (Draft, pp.E-28 to -30.) Such constraints remain widespread, when they can be abolished. But we credit that they are listed in the City’s constraints analysis (ibid.). That’s really what we want “remove[d].” (Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3).) It would be “appropriate” in a housing shortage, and we support its “legal[] possib[ility].” (Ibid.). If the City perceives any legal obstacles to removal, we are happy to help the City address them.
22.189
We hope the final housing element can be as clear and concise as possible, given the unintuitive statutes, and look forward to working with you.
Best,
Keith Diggs
Attorney, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
22.190
In response to the ever-increasing cost of living, Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for abundant housing at all levels of affordability to meet the needs of a growing population in Santa Cruz County. The Housing Element is an opportunity for the City of Santa Cruz to address the housing crisis on its own terms. We support sustainable growth, including along transportation corridors and activity centers and a commitment to lower Vehicle Miles Traveled by housing people near services and jobs. The following are our comments on the City of Santa Cruz’s 6th cycle Housing Element draft in no particular order.
The University
One of the largest sites for new housing in the next eight years will be UC Santa Cruz. The city acknowledges this in their site inventory and policy plan. Despite this, the city has been and continues to be a significant barrier to development at the university, as evidenced by past and ongoing litigation1. This is not acknowledged in the constraints portion of the city’s housing element.
The city should make a good faith effort to analyze the barriers it presents to housing construction and planning with regards to UCSC and propose programs to mitigate these impacts. We suggest a commitment to providing municipal services to new housing at UCSC and a policy to not sue over housing production on campus.
We would also like the city to provide a reference for the affordability levels assumed for the UC Santa Cruz units. While there has been talk of these rents being set below market rates, providing a reference to a commitment is important as this is the single largest source of affordable units for the city in this cycle.
Pipeline Projects
The largest source of new units for the city during the 6th cycle will likely be from pipeline projects. For jurisdictions relying heavily on pipeline projects, HCD recommends2 that “…the element should include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects, including the number of units and affordability (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining entitlements, supporting funding 2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/housing-element/SmaBrisbaneDraftOut01 0423.pdf
1 https://lookout.co/santacruz/ucsc-cabrillo/story/2023-04-18/city-of-santa-cruz-ucsc-in-talks-end-lawsuit-over-stude nt-enrollment-housing-plans
22.191
applications, expediting approvals and monitoring of project progress, including rezoning or identification of additional sites, if necessary).”
In order to meet this recommendation by HCD, the city should create policies to monitor the progress of pipeline projects. This could include automatic entitlement extensions until midway through the 6th cycle, a commitment to work with the Coastal Commission on facilitating housing proposed in the coastal zone, and proactively reaching out to all pipeline projects to confirm that there is still development interest.
Policy 1 - Housing Production
We are thrilled that the city has met their 5th cycle goals, however, with no rezoning taking place to meet the 6th cycle production goals, policies to increase housing production will be of huge importance.
Additionally, it is stated under Policy 1.2 that most new housing will be concentrated in the central core of the city, meaning along major commercial corridors and on major opportunity sites. While we laud recent progress that has been undertaken in the latter scope, we believe that the city should be looking towards additional opportunities as well as this scope could serve to not meet AFFH goals if new housing opportunities are restricted to downtown, commercial corridors, etc. In practice, this would serve to leave out neighborhoods such as Seabright, the majority of the West Side, Arana Gulch, etc. from seeing their fair share of development.
Policy 2 - Affordable Housing
The ordinance options allowing 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use would greatly speed along much needed affordable housing. As such, we urge expedited approval of this policy to 2024 or earlier (currently by the end of 2025). A commitment to developing or declaring city parking lots downtown surplus by a certain date with the goal of providing affordable housing would also be a valuable policy.
As part of objective 2.4c, we support establishing a Community Opportunity to Purchase3 program to give qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer or refusal to purchase certain properties offered for sale in the city. We also support establishing a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase4 program to help prevent displacement, empower tenants, and preserve affordable housing when the owner decides to sell.
Small Sites Program
The site inventory identifies a significant number of small parcels for development, many of which are projected to accommodate low income units. Per HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook5“A parcel smaller than one half acre is considered inadequate to accommodate 5 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf 4 https://ebclc.org/topa
3 https://sf.gov/information/community-opportunity-purchase-act-copa
22.192
housing affordable to lower income households, unless the housing element demonstrates development of housing affordable to lower income households on these sites is realistic or feasible.” The city claims that many of these parcels have development opportunities due to common ownership with adjacent parcels; we would like to see the site inventory expanded to include these adjacent sites.
Mid-cycle Review
To ensure the city makes appropriate progress towards its 6th cycle goals we would like to see a commitment to a mid-cycle review and adjustment (if needed). Tying this review to programs to increase housing production such as rezoning, ADU incentives, or removing development constraints would allow the city to quickly make up lost ground and minimize impacts of falling behind in the 6th cycle. This would also be a time to review pipeline projects which have not progressed.
Additional mid-cycle programs could include ministerial approval for all site inventory projects and SB10 upzoning of small sites to 10 units per parcel.
FAR and Density
A significant constraint to development of 2+ bedroom units is the units/ acre density requirement, something that does not apply to smaller units such as SROs. In order to increase the number of family sized (2+ bed) units built, this constraint should be removed or significantly modified. This could also be addressed by increasing the FAR for projects consisting of 50% or more 2+ bedroom units. This increase should allow the same net number of units as if they were proposed as SROs or a similar unlimited density unit.
Policy 5 - Neighborhood Vitality
Policy 5 (Neighborhood Vitality) opens with the following context: “Quality of life is shaped, in part, by neighborhood conditions in Santa Cruz. As an older, established community, Santa Cruz requires a concerted effort to encourage the maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing and to promote sustainable, livable neighborhoods in the face of increasing density.” We wholly reject the framing that density and sustainable, livable neighborhoods are incompatible. The city should update this language.
Missing Middle
Creation of missing middle housing isn’t mentioned within the policy plan - the city should adapt zoning regulations that would incentivize this form of housing. Examples include reducing minimum lot size, lot width, and parking requirements (kudos to the latter already being included!). In Redwood City’s compliant 6th cycle housing element6 amendments such as these are anticipated to result in an increase of at least 80 homes. 6 https://www.welcomehomerwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/REDWOOD-CITY-HE-ADOPTED-2-13-23.pdf
22.193
Upzoning Near Potential Light Rail Stations
The RTC has multiple scenarios for a passenger light rail route. In most scenarios stations would be located on the Westside, Bay/California, Downtown, and Seabright7. We encourage a program to look at additional density along the Coastal Rail Trail, with a focus on these station locations.
Tenant Protections
As a majority-renter city, it is important that we have strong tenant protections. There are a number of programs we would like to see implemented or expanded in the city including:
● Elimination of or cap on rental application fees
● Creation of a rental registry. This was recently passed by both Salinas8 and Monterey9 ● Local preference for people employed in the county
● COPA and TOPA programs (see Policy 2 - Affordable Housing) ● Conduct a disparate impact analysis of non-high(est) resource areas10 and apply a live-work preference if if it matches county demographics Parking
We are pleased to see that elimination of parking minimums is included as a policy objective. In the city’s work to achieve this, we believe the elimination of such requirements within a mile walking area of five or more amenities (pharmacies, grocery stores, transit stops, etc) would be a good intermediate policy stepping stone.
We also encourage the city to work with METRO and AMBAG to advocate for the creation of and planning for more high quality transit stops within the city in the 2050 MTP/SCS 11 (scheduled for June 2026). Such transit stops allow for more sustainable and affordable housing to be built.
Objective Standards
With the recent implementation of objective standards, the city should set forth a policy for staff to review and recommend if a project is consistent. If found consistent, the project should be placed on the consent agenda for all hearing bodies. Such projects should only be appealable to council if denied by the planning commission. This would greatly increase the incentive for developers to design projects compliant with the standards.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
As discussed in our Housing Production section, a majority of new housing is being planned along major corridors. This leaves out many exclusive and high opportunity 11 https://www.ambag.org/plans/2050-metropolitan-transportation-plan-sustainable-communities-strategy 10 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2023-ctcac-hcd-opportunity-map 9 https://www.montereyherald.com/2023/04/19/monterey-city-council-moves-ahead-with-rental-registry/ 8 https://www.ksbw.com/article/salinas-rental-registry/43523797 7 https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ServiceScenarioMap.png
22.194
neighborhoods from producing their fair share of housing. We encourage a policy to use SB10 or other means to expand housing opportunities in these neighborhoods and not limited to only Flexible Density Units (6.2d).
Permanent supportive housing is a key solution towards solving homelessness, the city should create a policy to ensure equitable distribution (and development potential) of such housing across all districts.
22.195
April 24, 2023
Mr. Matt VanHua
Principal Planner – Advance Planning
Planning and Community Development Department
809 Center Street, Room 107
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Matt,
COPA is eager to provide our feedback and recommendations in review of the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for the City of Santa Cruz. We appreciated the participation of Katherine Donovan, Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Brown in our March 19 Housing Civic Academy by listening to our stories and collaborating with COPA to include our voices in the draft Housing Element.
COPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of 28 dues-paying institutions - faith congregations, community-based organizations, schools and unions - teaching leadership and organizing for the common good on issues, including housing. We are engaging our membership in the Housing Element process across both Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Watsonville, Salinas, Seaside, Monterey and Pacific Grove.
On March 19, we collected 51 responses (out of 85 in attendance) to the questionnaires regarding housing affordability needs and the types of housing our members are seeking. Here are the results:
22.196
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total # Units
Needed by
Income Level
Acutely Low 12 3 2 1 18
Extremely Low 4 4 2 10
Very Low 5 3 1 9
Low 1 1 1 3
Moderate 0
Above Moderate 1 7 1 1 1 11
51 Households
participated
We also asked what types of housing are needed, based on the categories you had identified included in the community survey you conducted. Here are those responses:
Types of Housing Needed:
Senior Housing 10
Multi-generational Housing 12
Mixed-Income Housing 14
Housing for persons with
disabilities 8
For-Rent Apartments 21
For-Sale Condos 7
Duplexes or Triplexes 11
Townhomes 9
Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Supportive or Transitional
Housing 3
Other: housing authority voucher 2
Other: More Msr J 1
22.197
Other: securing a mortgage 1
Other: own a home with ADU 1
Other: for-rent studio
2 COPA comments on Housing Element - Ch. 2 Policy Plan
Overall, COPA strongly supports the priority of planning for sites along transit corridors, in the downtown,while pursuing the strategy of infill building and higher density. This “compact urban form” is a wise strategy to preserve open space and reduce car dependency to balance housing needs with environmental protection and conservation.
Goal 2: Affordable Housing
● 2.1a: COPA endorses maintaining the city’s current 20% inclusionary ordinance. ● 2.2c: COPA endorses the proposal for a city bond measure to finance the subsidization of housing construction for greater percentages of below-market-rate units. COPA stands ready to engage in the policy discussions on this concept and participate in the necessary outreach and organizing to secure passage of such a ballot measure.
● 2.2d: COPA encourages City lobbyists to work on state legislation to ease pressure on renters. We would like to see state legislation to eliminate application fees, place a cap on security deposits, and provide right-to-counsel for tenants facing eviction.
● 2.2g: COPA strongly supports the policy of “by right” approval for housing projects that provide 100% affordable units. The City successfully exercised this policy for COPA-member Calvary Episcopal Church for its 60 units currently under construction on its parking lot.
○ In addition, COPA urges the City to expand areas of the City that are eligible for by-right approval by applying the standard created by the State under AB2011 to all new development (both residential and commercial) to ensure that new projects have the benefit of streamlined entitlement approval while ensuring local workers are paid fair wages with health benefits.
● 2.3: COPA endorses the use of density bonuses to encourage greater number of units. Furthermore we encourage city staff to explore further incentivization of density by offering additional subsidy to cover additional construction of
22.198
below-market-rate units, which could be financed with proceeds of a city-wide bond measure.
○ Further, COPA recommends the elimination of density limits. There are presently no limits on density for Single Room Occupancy units (SRO’s) and single family homes, and this only incentivizing these housing types over the others.
● 2.4c: COPA recommends the City adopt two policy tools to facilitate the acquisition of existing properties for conversion to deed-restricted units. We urge the city to create a Community Opportunity to Purchase Program. The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) gives qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer, and/or the right of first refusal to purchase certain properties offered for sale in the City; and the creation of a TOPA - Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, TOPA, or “Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act”, is an anti-displacement housing policy that gives tenants options to have secure housing when the property they rent goes up for sale, while also preserving affordable housing.
Goal 3: Special Needs and Homeless
3.2 Given the high degree of rent-burdened families in our community, COPA strongly endorses the policy to include childcare centers within housing construction to increase the opportunities for affordable childcare in our community.
3.3 COPA strongly supports the partnerships to provide the Continuum of Care for homeless individuals.
Goal 4: Housing Assistance
4.1a: COPA endorses the continuance of the security deposit loan program in partnership with the County Housing Authority, however, the program delivery needs improvement to really be effective. The program is not well publicized and the communication, particularly in Spanish, is confusing. COPA recommends the program be changed to allow an applicant to pre-qualify for the loan so a tenant can respond quickly once they secure a unit to rent. In a tight rental market, decisions are made within hours and a multi-day, multi-step approval process has discouraged applicants from even trying to apply for this assistance. COPA also recommends greater funds for rental assistance and broader eligibility. The metric of “50 households” over the Cycle period is too low to be meaningful. We suggest a metric that reflects the portion of households that are at highest risk of housing instability illustrated in Table C-18 that reports 3,155 households spend more than 50% of their income on housing. Assuming
22.199
25% of these households may encounter an emergency where they may not be able to pay rent in a given month, a metric of 800 households would be more appropriate.
Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality
5.2b: COPA has found that many tenants are too fearful to report unsafe and illegal living conditions. They are not aware of the law or their rights and the responsibilities of the landlord to provide safe and healthy living conditions. We strongly endorse ‘expanded outreach’ on rental inspection program and code enforcement by working with community groups like COPA.
5.4a: COPA applauds the City for recognizing the need for targeted outreach to renters in the neighborhoods South of Laurel St, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean. It is important this outreach be done on evenings and weekends and in the Spanish language.
5.5 COPA strongly endorses this policy to “protect susceptible populations while improving infrastructure, resources and access to affordable units.” Additionally, COPA strongly recommends the City work toward a comprehensive set of policies that would prevent displacement, and provide stronger renter protections and relief from the high rent-burdens many experience in Santa Cruz. COPA proposes the following ideas:
a. Eliminate application fees
b. Cap security deposits to be a % of the rent or equivalent to one month’s rent only.
c. Improve security deposit loan programs by pre-qualifying tenants before apartment search
d. Increase legal assistance funding for more attorneys. There is an urgent need for greater access to free, bilingual legal assistance and “affirmative representation” for retaliation cases, and for displacement cases to be pursued. More funds for Tenant Sanctuary and California Rural Legal Assistance is need to increase staffing hours and hiring of attorneys. No tenant has the funds to pursue a case of retaliation for example. e. Proactive tenant outreach and education programs to explain rights, assistance programs.
f. Rental Registry to provide accurate data on rental market trends. g. Increase funding for rental assistance, possibly as a portion of Transient Occupancy Tax for renters who live and work in Santa Cruz as a way to support the hospitality workforce and prevent them from leaving the City. h. Partnership with District Attorney and/or the County Public Defender to enforce existing local and state civil codes to uphold tenant protections. i. Research models that allow rent with the option to buy for condos and townhomes.
22.200
Goal 6: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
6.1c: COPA endorses the policy of coordinating with the Housing Authority to pursue more funding for housing vouchers and the removal of barriers to utilize housing vouchers.
6.3b: COPA strongly endorses the need for increased funding of bilingual legal assistance and outreach for tenants.
Goal 7: Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship
7.3: COPA strongly supports policies to “Support transit-oriented development and non-motorized transportation.” and believes that the urban compact form of development will aid in achieving this goal.
COPA recommends the City implement a policy that affirms support for preference in leasing of new and existing affordable units that prioritize people who work in the community. Because such preferences get people closer to where they work, they have the added public benefit of not only ensuring that local workers get access to affordable housing opportunities but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic by reducing worker commutes to jobs in the City of Santa Cruz. Data analysis must be done to ensure that the demographics of the workforce in the target area (city or county) is reflective of the workforce as a whole to ensure no disparate impact is created on a protected class or group.
Such a preference can also be expanded to include not only local workers but also local, low-income residents in those neighborhoods where low-income residents are at risk of displacement due to gentrification pressures. An example of such a program is the one implemented by the County of Santa Cruz at the 17th and Capitola affordable housing project in Live Oak. Data analysis must be done to ensure that such a preference does not create a disparate impact on a protected group, but neighborhood based, anti-displacement preferences have been successfully implemented across the State in neighborhoods that are classified as “areas of economic distress” and that are home to a disproportionate number of low-income residents that are at risk of displacement.
22.201
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory
Overall, COPA supports the City’s list of housing sites identified along the corridors and infill opportunities in the residential neighborhoods. We have the following additional recommendations:
1. We would like to see the City identify and include its surface parking lots to be included on the site inventory. The surface parking lots could be reconfigured as housing projects, including parking on the lower levels so as not to lose city-owned parking resources. The downtown mixed use library is a good example of this potential. Parking funds could be used to finance construction (MidPen Housing coordinated a model project with San Mateo).
2. The City has an impressive list of pipeline projects. To facilitate the completion of these pipeline projects in an expeditious manner, we urge the City to make a commitment to refrain from lawsuits that would inhibit the University of Santa Cruz to proceed with its student and faculty housing projects.
3. The City could take additional steps to accelerate the pipeline projects by expediting the review process or identifying ways to provide administrative approvals.
4. Of the 2492 units proposed, we recommend timelines be established as metrics to encourage a timely review process.
5. It appears that the City does not need to complete any further re-zoning to meet its RHNA target numbers. We suggest the City continue to identify areas that could be re-zoned to further encourage property owners to consider land use for housing.
COPA looks forward to continue to engage with the City of Santa Cruz staff and elected Councilmembers and Mayor in the coming months to create a model Housing Element.
For a city that is famous for being the least affordable, COPA is committed to becoming famous for the boldest and best Housing Element possible for the provision of affordable housing for our families who live and work here.
Thank you!
Barbara Meister, COPA leader from Holy Cross Catholic Church on behalf of the COPA Housing Strategy Team
22.202
22.203
22.204
22.205
22.206
April 7, 2023
Matt VanHua
City of Santa Cruz, Planning and Community Development Department, Advance Planning Division 809 Center St #206
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Thank you for sharing this early draft of the Housing Element with the public. On behalf of the City of Santa Cruz’s nearly 400 residents with developmental disabilities, Housing Choices is grateful for the opportunity to comment before it is sent to HCD. We also appreciate the work that the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development staff has done to draft a Housing Element that prioritizes equity and inclusion and for including an analysis of the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by SB 812.
While we believe that this Draft does show that the City is taking seriously its obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for all City of Santa Cruz residents we found that there are some revisions or additions that should be considered in order to make sure that the Housing Element submitted to HCD is in full compliance with the state law. We believe with some minor changes this Draft has potential to be approved by HCD in a timely manner rather than requiring multiple rounds of revisions as seen in many other jurisdictions throughout the state. Some of our suggestions include further analysis of the special housing needs that exist within the city in accordance with HCD requirements so that the City may better prioritize and plan for the needs of the City’s most vulnerable residents including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities. We also believe that the City should include more measurable metrics in its Policy Plan for each objective by including not only a date by when each objective will be implemented but number of units or people to be served to measure the success of each program in Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and/or achieving the City’s RHNA goals. Lastly, while we support many of the new programs and policies already proposed in the Draft Housing Element we have included recommendations for refinements to the proposed programs as well as additional programs and policies the city should consider for inclusion in the Housing Element.
About Housing Choices
Housing Choices is a housing service provider funded by the San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) to support people with developmental disabilities to be fully integrated in the affordable housing supply within the Counties of Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito and Monterey. We provide housing navigation services for both individuals and families. We also partner with affordable housing developers to make inclusive housing commitments for people with developmental and other disabilities in their housing 1 22.207
projects. At these projects we provide onsite housing retention services. Our work over the past 25 years, including in the City of Santa Cruz at Water Street Apartments, shows that this model of housing plus services is highly effective in increasing housing access and stability for people with developmental disabilities.
The San Andreas Regional Center has contracted with Housing Choices to provide the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development staff and Housing Element consultants with an assessment of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities, as required by SB 812.
Missing Definition of Developmental Disabilities
Understanding what defines a developmental disability is key to understanding their housing needs and accessibility requirements. While the housing needs analysis which appears on pages C-20 through C-22 of the Draft Housing Element does discuss some of the types of housing that would be appropriate for a person with a developmental disability it does not talk about the requirement for supportive services in order to live in the community which defines a developmental disability and differentiates the accessibility needs of a person with a developmental disability from those of a person who has a disability that is solely physical.
California state law defines developmental disabilities as a disabling condition that emerged before age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is a substantial disability attributable to major impairment of cognitive and/or social functioning. A substantial disability is defined as “significant functional limitations…in three or more of the following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the person's age: Receptive and expressive language; Learning; Self-care; Mobility; Self-direction; Capacity for independent living; and/or Economic self-sufficiency”. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. A developmental disability by definition does not include conditions that are solely physical, psychiatric or learning disabilities (Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 54000-54002 of the Code of Regulations). Under California’s Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive setting of their choosing. The shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement, under SB 812, that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from the state’s 21 Regional Center in order to live in their home community. San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is funded by the Department of Development Services (DDS) to serve all Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities. While SARC is able to fund the services needed for consumers to live independently they are not able to provide funding for housing which is why jurisdictions must plan for housing that is appropriate and accessible for this special needs population.
Incomplete Assessment of Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities HCD has provided guidance for a complete analysis of special housing needs groups, which must include:
● A quantification of the total number of persons and households in the special housing needs group, including tenure (rental or ownership), where possible. 2 22.208
● A quantification and qualitative description of the need (including a description of the potential housing problems faced by the special needs groups), a description of any existing resources or programs, and an assessment of unmet needs.
● Identification of potential programs or policy options and resources to address the need In addition for the analysis of the housing needs of people with developmental and other disabilities HCD further advises that jurisdictions should include:
● A discussion of resources, including existing housing and services for people with disabilities.
Contact local, service providers such as the local Center for Independent Living, county health/mental-health departments, health-related nonprofits (e.g. United Cerebral Palsy, Crippled Children’s Society, Heart Fund, Lung Association, Diabetes Association, Cancer Society, etc.) or school districts that maintain the number of students enrolled in special education programs, students requiring special accommodations and/or transportation, and students participating in home schooling.
● Identification of housing types (e.g. residential care facilities) that can accommodate people with disabilities and zoning and capacity available to facilitate these housing types. ● Housing programs or strategies to address identified needs.
While the City of Santa Cruz’s draft analysis of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities does quantify the housing need, because this quantification is based on zip code level data for only one of the zip codes within city limits it underestimates the true number of City of Santa Cruz residents who have a developmental disability. Furthermore, the draft housing needs analysis does not meaningfully discuss the factors driving the housing needs of this population nor does it discuss best practices for creating inclusive affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities requiring on-site supportive services funded by SARC in order for them to have equitable access to living in the community as a person without a disability.
In its quantitative analysis the city used data reported by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) by zip code to estimate the number of residents with developmental disabilities living in the City of Santa Cruz. By requesting this information directly from SARC, Housing Choices was able to get city-specific data which is reflected in the table below:
Table ___ City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County Population with Developmental Disabilities Age City of Santa
Cruz
City of Santa
Cruz % of total
Santa Cruz
County
Santa Cruz
County % of
total
Under age 18 88 24% 407 29%
18 and older 275 76% 1009 71%
Total 363 100% 1416 100%
Note: The City of Santa Cruz population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Cruz County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021. 3 22.209
Housing Choices was also able to get data from SARC regarding the living arrangements of City of Santa Cruz residents with developmental disabilities to better understand where people are currently living and where there may be need for improvement in housing and services for this population. Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is of particular importance because as they age the adults will require a residential option outside the family home, whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities.
Table ___ Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in the City of Santa Cruz Compared to Santa Cruz County
Adult Living
Arrangements
City of
Santa Cruz
City of Santa Cruz
Percent of Total
Santa Cruz
County
County Percent of
Total
In the family home 151 55% 630 62%
Own apartment with
supportive services 97 35% 248 25%
Licensed Facilities 23 8% 125 12%
Other (including homeless) 4 2% 6 1%
Total Adults 275 100% 1009 100%
Note: The City of Santa Cruz population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Cruz County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.
As of November 2021, SARC reported that the family home is the most prevalent living arrangement for City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities, with 55% of adults living in the family home.
This is lower than the County overall where 62% of adults live at home. While the family home is considered to be a community based living arrangement, as discussed below, there is an increased risk of displacement or homelessness when aging parents are no longer able to provide housing. Instead, for adults with developmental disabilities the most integrated and least restrictive living arrangement available to them is living independently in their own apartment with supportive services. In the City of Santa Cruz, only 35% of adults with developmental disabilities have been able to transition into their own apartment due to the lack of deeply affordable housing available. In addition, 8% of City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities live in licensed care facilities, a segregated housing type available to people with developmental disabilities where interaction with people without disabilities is more limited than in integrated housing settings. Without planning for more inclusive affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities to transition into when aging parents are no longer able to provide housing, the City of Santa Cruz will see more adults falling into homelessness, being displaced or being forced to live in segregated settings.
Some of the other relevant factors affecting the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities that are not discussed in the Draft Housing Element are:
● Decline in Licensed Care Facilities in Santa Cruz County. The Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, there was a 7% decrease in the number of people with developmental disabilities able to be housed in licensed care facilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities) in Santa Cruz County, even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family home grew. This trend is the result of increased housing prices making it less financially 4 22.210
feasible for new facilities to open when old ones close as well as a decrease in demand as more adults choose to live in less restrictive settings increasing the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center. The County’s reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities will be forced out of the County when their parents are no longer able to house them--unless there is a significant improvement in access to affordable housing.
Table ___ Changes in Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities from 2015-2021 in Santa Cruz County
Adult Living
Arrangements 2015 2021 Percent Change
In the family home 477 630 32%
Own apartment with
supportive services 231 248 7%
Licensed Facilities 135 125 (-7%)
Other (including
homeless) 5 6 20%
Total Adults 848 1009 19%
Source: Department of Developmental Services Quarterly Report by County. ● Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the Santa Cruz County adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a well-documented annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015. The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth of the Santa Cruz County population aged 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities and will continue into the future. This trend has significant implications for housing needs among City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as the population can be expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than the general population.
Table __ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in Santa Cruz County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 395 484 23%
32 to 41 185 192 4%
41 to 52 103 135 31%
52 to 61 118 114 (-3%)
62 plus 47 84 79%
Total adults 848 1009 19%
Source: Department of Developmental Services data reported at the county level in June 2021 and September 2015 5 22.211
Note: These data assume that all people with developmental disabilities under age 18 live in the family home. The impact of this assumption, if incorrect, is to underestimate the number of adults living in the family home who may need other residential living options.
● Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 79% (Table __). This increase is generally attributable to well-documented gains in life span rather than migration of seniors into high cost Santa Cruz County. Longer life spans mean that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are the largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in the City of Santa Cruz. And because older adults currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Cruz County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Santa Cruz to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away.
● Displacement. Notwithstanding 19% growth in Santa Cruz County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 3% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in Santa Cruz County between September 2015 and June 2021 (Table ___). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of a lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Due to increased reliance on the family home as a living arrangement (based on a 32% increase of adults remaining in the family home in Santa Cruz County between 2015-2021) this trend is expected to continue to worsen unless more inclusive affordable housing is developed during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in the City of Santa Cruz. ● Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. According to the Department of Developmental Services 26% of Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, 9% have a vision impairment and 4% have a hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with both cognitive and physical disabilities.
● Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of many of the limited number of affordable housing units in the City of Santa Cruz. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units now available for rent in the City of Santa Cruz.
● Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car so rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.
By including this data in the City’s Draft Housing Element the city can better plan to meet the current needs of residents with developmental disabilities and track changes over time in future Housing Elements.
6 22.212
The City of Santa Cruz has found a proven solution to address the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities at inclusive affordable housing projects such as Water Street Apartments, a strategy which is not included in the Draft Housing Element. At Water Street Apartments, 8 of the project's 40 units are set-aside for people with developmental disabilities allowing the developer to offer deeply affordable housing paired with on-site supportive services funded by SARC at no cost to the developer or residents with developmental disabilities. These services help people with developmental disabilities, who are typically on fixed or limited incomes and require supportive services to live independently, equitable access to find and retain stable housing thereby promoting integration and meeting HCD’s requirement to AFFH. In order to meet the increasing housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities still living in the family home or wanting to transition out of institutional settings, the city must plan for more inclusive affordable housing properties. The following considerations should guide the City of Santa Cruz in this pursuit:
● Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of the City of Santa Cruz. ● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. ● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location of housing near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed by people with developmental disabilities. Per HCD guidance, the City should plan for at least 430 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units, or 50% of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities, and some of the City’s planned production of ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities.
We believe that the inclusion of these missing elements would strengthen the city’s assessment of the housing needs of City of Santa Cruz residents with developmental disabilities. Furthermore, it would help the city to create more meaningful programs and policies to meet the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by Housing Element law.
Strengthening Impact of Programs
We want to thank planning staff and the consultant who developed this draft for recommending a suite of new programs, policies and goals that we believe can create a more inclusive and equitable community.
We are especially supportive of objective 2.2c. Explore additional funding mechanisms…for affordable housing such as an affordable housing bond measure as we have seen this strategy to be very effective in development of affordable housing in communities such as the City of San Jose as well as objective 2.2g Present Council with ordinance options that allow 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed in residential and mixed-use zones as shorter 7 22.213
timelines for project approvals can reduce project costs and make sure that much needed affordable housing gets built more quickly.
While we believe that the programs outlined in the Housing Element will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing we are concerned that some lack the concrete steps, timelines and measurable metrics by which to evaluate success of these programs. Without all of these elements the city is at-risk of implementing ineffective programs with little or no effect on meeting its RHNA or Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for all special needs populations and protected groups. By including objective standards by which to measure the success of each program the City can better analyze and make changes in the future to improve these programs.
Other concerns and recommendations for strengthening the effectiveness of the Draft programs to increase the city’s ability to meet its many goals and policies include:
● Objective 2.1b. Review the Inclusionary Ordinance…The City should commit to offering greater flexibility for developers to meet the inclusionary unit requirements to better serve the needs of the community. Most adults with developmental disabilities have incomes too low to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Low and Very Low Income units currently offered under the city’s inclusionary ordinance and are effectively excluded from this housing option.
California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units priced for extremely low income or targeted to special needs populations.
Such a menu would address a broader range of the City of Santa Cruz’s housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. Example: San Mateo County Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance; Redwood City Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Sample Language: The City of Santa Cruz shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to offer developers a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income) or special needs groups targeted, including, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Objective 2.2b Identify residential projects for City financial or regulatory incentives subject to City Council approval & Objective 4.2b Support the continuation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund- The City should commit to prioritizing local funding and resources for affordable housing development towards the development of housing at the deepest levels of affordability which are most difficult to achieve. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing development through a land trust or under an inclusionary housing ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of Extremely Low Income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from 8 22.214
services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: Kiku Crossing in City of San Mateo; City of San Jose Housing Department NOFA; San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund NOFA Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, the City of Santa Cruz shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center.
● Policy 2.3 Support the Density Bonus. The City should commit to revising the density bonus to include additional incentives for the development of Extremely Low Income housing beyond that which is currently available for low and very low income units. Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. However, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. The City of Santa Cruz should add additional local incentives to the state density bonus law in its local density bonus ordinance or through development of an affordable housing overlay zone to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Cruz County’s high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for City of Santa Cruz residents who are Extremely Low Income.
The city should also include additional incentives for projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs populations who experience the greatest barriers to housing access including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: Palo Alto Affordable Housing Incentive Program; Menlo Park Affordable Housing Overlay Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City of Santa Cruz shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or which commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Policy 3 Special Needs and Homelessness. As part of its commitment to meeting the housing needs of special needs populations including people who are unhoused the City should recognize that many of these special needs populations overlap with the population of Extremely Low Income households in the city. ELI households experience the highest rates of housing cost burden and are therefore at greatest risk of falling into homelessness. Without first solving the crisis of households becoming unhoused at a faster rate than new homeless housing resources are developed the City will continue to see the unhoused population growing. In order to keep more people stably housed the City should not only commit to developing at least 50% of its VLI RHNA as ELI housing but create policies and programs to specifically incentivize the development of ELI housing. Some strategies to consider are discussed above such as additional density bonuses and lowering the inclusionary requirements if deeper affordability or special needs groups are included. These new policies and programs should include measurable metrics to track progress in meeting the housing needs of specific special needs groups. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities and other special needs groups 9 22.215
is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion from the current housing supply. A goal of 70 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of Santa Cruz residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.
Sample Language: The City of Santa Cruz shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 70 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.
By making the above recommended revisions to the Draft Housing Plan the City can better address the needs of the most vulnerable special needs populations including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities.
In addition to these policy and program changes the city should also correct the language in Policy 6.1 The City shall mitigate displacement risks and seek to remove barriers to housing choice vouchers which incorrectly states that vouchers are accepted on a voluntary basis by landlords. As currently written this statement could cause confusion for both renters and landlords and lead to the spread of misinformation as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act was amended in 2020 to include protections from source of income discrimination with specific regulations on how income from households with rental subsidies should be calculated in determining income eligibility for rental units.
We urge you to consider our recommendations and make changes to the City of Santa Cruz Housing Element so that it meaningfully addresses the housing needs of its residents with developmental and other disabilities.
Sincerely,
Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate
Email [email protected]
Cell 650-660-7088
10 22.216
1 Galmiche, Ines
From: Matthew VanHua <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Galmiche, Ines
Subject: FW: Engfer - Comments regarding RHNA 6 Housing Element DRAFT Categories: External
From: Doug Engfer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:09 PM
To: Katherine Donovan <[email protected]>; Matthew VanHua <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Neuse <[email protected]>; Samantha Haschert <[email protected]> Subject: Comments regarding RHNA 6 Housing Element DRAFT
Katherine and Matt -
Greetings! Hope you’re well (and dry!).
This email contains the comments that I submitted to City Planning regarding the RHNA 6 Housing Element draft that was distributed for public comment, organized by document section as well as topical import. The formatting is clunky in order to facilitate working within the capabilities of the Microsoft Forms based comment feature on the City website.
Given the limitations of that comment feature (character-count in particular), I’m sending this to you as a “belt + suspenders” play, to ensure that you can make sense of my submitted comments and questions. I’ve included Sarah and Samantha due to my observations (see “Locating Density”) regarding zoning implications of our abundance of deemeddevelop-able parcels (124% overage beyond RHNA 6 requirements).
Generally, I would like to commend the City and Staff on their good work both (1) achievements v RHNA 5 goals and (2) putting together a comprehensive and practicable plan for achieving our RHNA 6 goals. We need to (continue to) do our part to provide adequate and affordable housing in California. Introduction (Ch 1)
o * Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element.
*** Parks - With appropriately-increased focus on higher-density MFR development, the City must center the development, access, and maintenance of the City Parks system, so that MFR residents have ample and ready access to outdoor facilities for recreation and relaxation. There is no mention of this in the document; I submit that this is a glaring omission and one that cuts against achieving appropriate health-oriented equities. The City must commit to an enhance parks program as part of this RHNA cycle. That effort
22.217
2 should include consideration of and, as appropriate, improvement or development of active-transportation-based “safe routes to parks” from areas of high-density development.
*** Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for higher-density development. This work must contemplate Safe Routes to Schools, as well as to parks, critical resources (food shopping, etc.), and commercial centers. The City should develop and enforce clear standards for protecting and preserving existing active transportation corridors, as we (rightly) focus on increasing the housing density on our transit corridors and downtown.
Those clear standards should be called out in this document. *** Locating Density - The document notes that we have 224% of the capacity needed in order attain the RHNA 6 goals (that is, develop-able lands allow for a 124% overage above the RHNA 6 target). As such, it’s clear that the City would be able to reduce the maximum densities allowed on shallow parcels immediately adjacent to existing homes (as along Water and Soquel in the Branciforte area). Zoning these parcels so that buildings “max out” at 3 stories (at most 4 with bonuses) would go a long way to gain community favor for the overall plan, and reduce the potential conflicts that may arise when out-of-scale projects are proposed (as was the case with 831 Water St). Doing so would clearly NOT threaten the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA 6 goals; as such, the City should carefully review and adjust the target zoning for parcels that meet these criteria.
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page 1-1] “Monterrey” should be “Monterey"
Policy Plan (Ch 2)
o * Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
** Specific comments
*** [Page 2-4] Goal 1.2f should include some consideration, based on the evolving and changing character of the community’s economy, of whether the industrial lands are zoned for highest/best use, and triggers for when/whether zoning changes (e.g., to mixed commercial/residential) are called for.
*** [Page 2-8] Inclusionary Ordinance. The document refers to reviewing the Inclusionary Ordinance in order to maximize development of affordable housing without “being a barrier to housing development.” While I acknowledge that excessively high inclusionary levels can effectively prevent development, at present it’s not possible to assess the impacts of inclusionary ordinances, because developers are not sharing their business models and project economics. Developers who want to take advantage of density bonuses should be willing to share their project economics; the City should require it. It should not be the City’s obligation to blindly incent development. *** [Page 2-8] Vouchers. Further, the notion that developers can’t make affordable units “pencil” at a time when citizens have Housing Choice Vouchers that landlords won’t honor is simply disingenuous. Landlords/developers can receive full market value for deemed affordable units simply by accepting these vouchers! *** [Page 2-13] Childcare. The Housing Element makes much of the City’s “commit[ment]” to childcare. And yet the City (and County) in the recent CORE grants process completely eliminated City support for existing childcare programs (which the City and County had supported in the past). This community support enabled local childcare centers to provide low-cost care to lower-income families. Before developing new childcare facilities, the City should support and enhance existing programs to their
22.218
3 capacity. Objective 3.2a should be re-written from “continue to assist” to “restore and expand assistance to”, since there is no currently-funded support for childcare. *** [Page 2-14] Homelessness Response. The City’s focus should be on supporting the development of shelter and facilities, not providing services. The County should be the lead agency for funding and supporting services delivered in those facilities (and facilities throughout the County).
*** [Page 2-16] UCSC. As relates to Policy 3.5, if I read this correctly (UCSC committed to 25% of housing for new facility/staff - 558 additional new housing units), then UCSC expansion will consume at least 1500 units of our RHNA 6 goal. It’s not clear to me how that helps further our goal of providing ample affordable housing for the community - the document should make clear how that goal reasonably fits within the overall Housing Element’s goals.
*** [Page 2-16] Affordability. Further, the City and University should work together to ensure that on-campus housing is provided below prevailing market, in order to relieve UCSC pressure on local housing stock, availability, and affordability. *** [Page 2-27] Transit and active transportation. Policy 7.3 should be more explicit. Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element. Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for higher-density development. This work must contemplate Safe Routes to Schools, as well as to parks, critical resources (food shopping, etc.), and commercial centers. The City should develop and enforce clear standards for protecting and preserving existing active transportation corridors, as we (rightly) focus on increasing the housing density on our transit corridors and downtown.
Those clear standards should be called out in this document. *** [Page 2-28] Wildfire. City zoning and building policies must incorporate the learnings from recent urban-area fires (e.g., Santa Rosa), so that our built environment is appropriately protected from wildfires that become urban fires. Flood / sea-level rise.
City zoning and building policies must reflect flooding risks in low-lying or flood-prone areas. Specifically, building code should ensure that vital building infrastructure is safe from flood waters (whether caused by weather or sea-level rise, or a combination of the two).
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page 2-2] Make left-indentation of the “Goals” descriptive text consistent (text for Goals 1 and 4 differs from others)
** [Page 2-5] “…community to potential barriers to…” re-write to make sense; “…to recognized…” should be “…to recognize…”
** [Page 2-8] “…the City’s Inclusionary.” Should presumably be “…the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance.”
** [Page 2-16] “USCS” should be “UCSC”
** [Page 2-20] “…are home to large a proportion…” should be “…are home to a large proportion…"
** [Page 2-22] “…previously known a…” should be “…known as…” ** [Page 2-25] “…produces and delivers to nearly…” should be “…produces and delivers water to nearly 100,000 customers …”
22.219
4 ** [Page 2-27] “…compliment the…” should be “…complement the…” Community Engagement (App A)
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Throughout] Inconsistent use of “LatinX” and “Latino”. Consult with the community about preference and use one or the other, but not both.
Past Performance (App B)
o * Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** [Throughout] Benchmarking. There are many missed opportunities for the document to benchmark Santa Cruz demography, in order to provide needed context for the public and for planners and policy-makers, and in order to highlight those areas where Santa Cruz notably differs from other communities or national standards. In my opinion, it’s not enough to simply compare Santa Cruz to other parts of the County, given that county communities differ widely. It would be helpful to add comparisons to other benchmarks / communities (e.g., in many cases Santa Barbara or Santa Monica may be relevant comparators; in other cases, statewide or nationwide numbers may (also) be useful). Specific instances include:
[Page B-2] Seniors (12.5% of population)
[Page B-3, C-20] Disabilities (9.7% of population)
[Page B-7] ELI households (25% of households)
[Page C-10] HH size (2.4 persons per HH)
[Page C-17] Overcrowding (% by owner v renter)
[Page C-18] Cost-burdening (55.4% of renters)
[Page C-25] Poverty (20% living in poverty)
[Page C-26] Homelessness (benchmark outside of our area, please) ** Specific comments
*** [Page B-8] UCSC. The text here is unclear and potentially self-contradictory regarding the University’s commitment to student housing. The document refers to the settlement agreement between the City and UCSC, which requires the University to provide housing for 2/3 of its student population. The document then indicates the LRDP proposes 10,125 on-campus beds and 579 off-campus beds. That is NOT 2/3 of the LRDP’s target student population. The Element needs to make clear whether and, if so, how the University plans to meet the settlement agreement terms, or make clear that the University does not plan to do so (and the resulting impacts on the local housing situation).
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page B-3] “…Loudon Nelson…” should be “…London Nelson…” ** [Page B-6] “…homeless persons’ being…” should be “…homeless persons being…”; bullet for Janus item formatting inconsistent with other bullets
** [Page B-7] CHAS is used without definition (not defined until page C-11) ** [Page B-8] “…50 unit affordable…” should be “50-unit affordable…”; “…full-time while attend school…” should be “…full-time while attending school…" Needs Assessment (App C)
o * Comments and Questions
** Specific comments
*** [Page C-10, C-23, etc.] The numbers presented relating to single-adult households (HHs) are inconsistent and/or unclear throughout. For example, on page C-10, Table C-9 cites 1,680 “Female HH, No Spouse Present”, while Table C-10 cites 1,008 “Female Households, No Spouse” and 1,680 “Male Households, No Spouse”. Tables C-24 and C25 (pages C-23, 24) suggest that only female-headed HHs are in poverty (210 singleparent HH living in poverty v 210 Single Parent Female HH Living in Poverty). That seems incredible to me. Need to make a thorough and critical review of all of these figures in
22.220
5 order to ensure consistency, validity and accuracy. Also need to clarify whether referring to single-person HHs or single-parent HHs (with dependent children). Again, these HH numbers are difficult to make sense of throughout.
*** [Page C-19] Reference to female-headed (presumably no-partner) HHs as “special needs”, per HCD. I would suggest that the Element should certainly center HCDdesignated special needs HHs, and should also note that male-headed (presumably nopartner) HHs will, in many cases, evidence the same special needs as female-headed HHs (need for childcare, etc.). Analyses breaking out female-headed no-partner HHs should also break out male-headed no-partner HHs.
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page C-2] Formatting of numbers in the 2020 Actual column needs attention. ** [Page C-11] CHAS used and defined here; used previously, without definition, on page B-7. ** [Page C-17] The narrative regarding Table C-17 (overcrowding prevalence, owner v renter occupied) does not comport with the numbers presented in the table. Fix the narrative so that it makes sense based on the numbers (215 is 3.3% of 6,515, which is nowhere to be found in the table).
** [Page C-22] The narrative relating to Table C-23 (on the following page) should be cleaned up. It refers to “five or more” and “six or more” and “seven or more” occupant HHs, but the data are actually 5-person, 6-person, and 7 or more. Also, the text says that there are more owneroccupied 5- and 6-person HHs, but that’s not reflected in the data; all of the categories have more renter HHs than owner HHs.
** [Page C-27] Using West Valley College as an example “out of area” commuter school seems an odd choice. How about SJSU or SCU instead? How many folks commute to WVC? ** [Page C-29] “…nearby jurisdiction.” Should be “…nearby jurisdictions.” ** [Page C-32] “…higher to the ACS…” should be “…higher than the ACS…” ** [Page C-33] “the U.S… .” Should be “The U.S. …"
Fair Housing (App D)
o * Comments and Questions
** Specific comments
*** [Page D-54] Vouchers. I would like to understand why there is an “extreme shortage of housing vouchers” - what are the causes of this shortage, and what can we do, as a community, to fund or create more vouchers (as well as get landlords to accept them)? o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page D-5] “…polices…” should be “…policies…”
** [Page D-23] “…it is consider as…” should be “…it is considered as…” ** [Page D-47] “…less than one persons…” should (probably) refer to one percent?; similarly with “…and one identified as Asian…”? If the latter is, indeed, one person, then say so. ** [Page D-52] Reference to exponential population growth is inaccurate and hyperbolic.
Exponential growth is growth that accelerates over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth). That is not the case here. “Rapid” or “accelerated” growth seems more appropriate.
Constraints (App E)
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page E-3] “…$100 a square foot…” should be “…$100 per square foot…”; “…Discloser Act…” should be “…Disclosure Act…”; the narrative regarding approval rates by ethnicity are inconsistent. One paragraph cites 60% for American Indian; the other, 45.2% - correct as appropriate.
** [Page E-45] Reference to 4.2 million gallons per day (GPD) to SCWD service area is incorrect.
The SCWD serves an average of closer to 6.5MGD year round (lower in winter; higher in summer). The 4.2 MIGHT be correct for customers within the City Limits; would need to confirm that with SCWD.
** [Page E-45] “…pipped…” should be “…piped…”
22.221
6 ** [Page E-46] “…and potable and domestic…” should be “…and potable domestic…" Sites (App G)
o * Comments and Question
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Locating Density - The document notes that we have 224% of the capacity needed in order attain the RHNA 6 goals (that is, develop-able lands allow for a 124% overage above the RHNA 6 target). As such, it’s clear that the City would be able to reduce the maximum densities allowed on shallow parcels immediately adjacent to existing homes (as along Water and Soquel in the Branciforte area). Zoning these parcels so that buildings “max out” at 3 stories (at most 4 with bonuses) would go a long way to gain community favor for the overall plan, and reduce the potential conflicts that may arise when out-of-scale projects are proposed (as was the case with 831 Water St). Doing so would clearly NOT threaten the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA 6 goals; as such, the City should carefully review and adjust the target zoning for parcels that meet these criteria.
** Specific comments
o * Editorial suggestions
** [Page G-5] “…recently developed sites…” should be “…recently-developed sites…” ** [Page G-31] “…the construction a…” should be “…the construction of a …”; “SRO’s” should be “SROs”.
Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz
22.222
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
Thank you for all the work on this Housing Element draft. It is clear that the City is committed to a Housing Plan that will work to address a housing and affordability crisis with some attention to broader issues like Climate and a focus on Fair Housing. It is also quite an accomplishment to be so close on your 5th cycle RHNA numbers.
These comments are only on the Housing Plan document - I’ll submit comments on other sections as time is available.
Scope and Timelines
A primary consideration with the Housing Plan is that many of the objectives speak to improvements and revisions but do not provide any baseline, scope or target outcome. It is hard to determine how one knows the objective has been achieved. As well, many of the programs have “ongoing” as the Metric - they lack milestones, timelines or a means to hold the City accountable for progress.
As noted in the next section, there is an opportunity to include information from the 5th cycle towards a more clear set of commitments in both scope and timeline.
Many of the objectives use vague language such as
● “Continue to…” “Expand…” “Improve…” - anything including these words should be able to establish a baseline or scope and identify milestones towards completion. ● “Facilitate…” - there are instances where the outcome of the City’s facilitation is unclear ● “Collaborate…” - any objectives with this should make clear the commitment to a shared outcome and a timeline.
There are words that are vaguely defined by context nor in the Glossary including:
● Affordable housing
● Sensitive populations
● Mixed-income (often before “neighborhoods” or “projects”) ● Alternative housing types
I recommend you look at Redwood City’s Housing Element
Leverage Past Performance in 5th Cycle
For policies that are a repeat or continuation from the 5th cycle, how can lessons learned or commitments from the 5th cycle inform more specifics on outcomes and milestones/dates? Some examples include:
April 4 2023 Page 1 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.223
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
● Policy 2.5 : You know from the 5th cycle (Program 2.6) that many at-risk units are Section 8 from the 5th cycle, and you have been working with individual property owners for incentives.
How can this inform more specific outcomes for 6th?
● Planned Development permits (Policy 1.6) which appeared as Program 1.4 in 5th - what was the result of the study to be done?
● Permits and Review (Policy 1.3) which appeard as Program 1.5 - what about the city-wide fee study, should that be a milestone in 6th?
● Policy 2.2 (was Program 2.2 and Program 2.4) In 5th cycle, there were taxes in the objectives - Transfer Tax and TOT - Only one of these has passed. Recommend transfer tax or vacancy tax.
As well, In the 5th cycle you mention the Pro-Housing Designation, but it is not in the 6th cycle Housing Plan. Can that be a milestone?
● Policy 3.6 (was Program 3.7) does not reflect the City’s new Homeless Services Division and all its commitments and funding which is part of the 5th Cycle progress. ● Supposedly continued from the 5th cycle (was Program 4.5) is the development of a Fair Housing Plan - I don’t see any reference in the 6th cycle Housing Plan.
Available Housing and AFFH
The word “affordable” appears in the Housing Plan 67 times. This is a very important focus for the Housing Element. Policies related to the defined “affordable” income levels should remain and there must be strong commitments to affordable housing production, serving at-risk populations and preventing displacement.
However, it is clear that Santa Cruz is increasingly unaffordable to a wider range of residents - the majority of the city is cost burdened (over 30%) (Fair Housing Assessment). According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the Two-Bedroom Housing Wage for the City of Santa Cruz exceeds $60. Therefore the Housing Plan should include policies that increase housing that is available to a full range of incomes. Santa Cruz needs more housing for everyone.
Policy 6.2 focuses on single-family zoning, which is terrific, and uses the phrase “affordable housing” to counter historical patterns of segregation. While AFFH definitely includes more affordable housing (VLI/LI) throughout the City and especially in single-family zoning which historically has reinforced segregation and exclusion,, addressing AFFH goes beyond that. If you look at HCD guidance on AFFH, they say
“The goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in April 4 2023 Page 2 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.224
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all Californians.”
In a high resource area like Santa Cruz, AFFH must include housing opportunities and mobility for a range of income levels, given that median income still has many residents cost-burdened. My suggestion is that you enhance the opportunity for naturally occurring missing middle in single-family zoning- duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes - all larger than ADUs, but less than Inclusionary Ordinance.
Similarly, there is a focus on “affordable” housing for mixed-income which is seen as the path to diversity of neighborhoods. While it may be the primary way the City promotes mixed-income development (Policy 2.1), naturally occurring missing middle adds another path to get to diverse, vibrant, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. Let’s do both!
The phrase “missing middle” does not appear in the Housing Plan though the words “duplex”, “triplex” appear a lot in the community input. Making it easier to build missing middle and smaller infill projects throughout the city should be added other parts of the Housing Plan, e.g. Housing Production Policies (section 1 of the Housing Plan)
Redwood City’s Housing Element has an excellent summary of how they approach this vision (this HE is an excellent example of clear objectives and commitments to timelines as well):
Increase Housing at All Income Levels in High Resource Neighborhoods by o Implementing SB 9 duplexes in single family neighborhoods, o Continuing to encourage accessory dwelling units in single family neighborhoods, (Program H1.5)
o Increasing middle housing opportunities, and
o Studying increasing densities (upzoning) in single family neighborhoods beyond SB 9 requirements (they have this as Program H1.4)
Fees and Process
It is terrific to see an objective that includes an ordinance (Policy 2.2g) to allow ministerial approval for 100% affordable residential development. In the interest of building infill/missing middle housing faster, you should
● extend ministerial approval beyond single-family and ADUS to smaller multi-family projects (less than 50 units?) meeting Objective Standards.
April 4 2023 Page 3 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.225
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
● Review fees (not just to cover city costs!) with an outcome of incentivizing multi-family housing over single-family housing, including smaller multifamily projects.
Explicitly Connecting to Other City Plans
The City has worked on other plans that intersect with the Housing Element that could inform this Housing Plan more explicitly. A notable example is the Homelessness Response Action Plan which has very specific objectives/actions that could be referenced in this Housing Plan, especially Policy 3.3.
The City’s Climate Action Plan has a Measure (T1.7) which references the Housing Element and much of what it addresses, yet the only mention of the Climate Action Plan is in Policy 7.2 about green building principles.
From the Climate Action Plan:
T1.7 Efficient and Equitable Land Use (HIGH IMPACT ACTION) Accelerate housing development and support commercial and industrial development in city limits, concentrating the most intensive growth in transit corridors and central areas of the city to promote walking and biking to nearby jobs, entertainment, goods, services, and public transportation, through the General Plan Housing Element Update to be approved in 2023.
Prioritize expansion of affordable housing stock.
Partner to incentivize 15-minute neighborhoods, particularly within frontline neighborhoods communities, supported by dense housing and buildings, provision of locally sited essential services and amenities, and connected by a network of bike, pedestrian, and transit services.
Renter Protections
There is a clear difference in income levels between renters and homeowners (see Table C-12). The Fair Housing Assessment also indicates that renters have overpayment rates, are a high % of residents in areas identified for displacement and at risk for homelessness.
It is great that you include anti-displacement policies in Policy 5.5, though you could be more specific with the recommendations from the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project that Santa Cruz does NOT have:
○ Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (beyond the state law)
○ Rent Stabilization or Rent Control (beyond Large Rent Increases Ordinance addition to Chapter 21.03)
○ Rent Review Board and/or Mediation
April 4 2023 Page 4 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.226
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
The other focus on renters comes in the form of rental assistance (e.g. security deposits) which is a continuation of existing work. Are there additional efforts to help renters? One example would be:
● Create a database that shows how many apartments are occupied, how many are vacant and what the rents are, and helps people eligible for rental protections (aka Rental Registry) Climate and Transit
The City’s Climate Action Plan has a Measure (T1.7) which references the Housing Element and much of what it addresses, yet the only mention of the Climate Action Plan is in Policy 7.2 about green building principles. The Climate Action Plan touches on use of transit corridors, affordable housing stock but also speaks to “15-minute neighborhoods, supported by dense housing and buildings, provision of locally sited essential services and amenities, and connected by a network of bike, pedestrian, and transit services.” The 15-minute neighborhood shows up in the community outreach, but is not mentioned as a desired vision for Santa Cruz anywhere in the Housing Element.
There are some good elements related to modifications to parking. I would like to see more related to parking that affects the cost of production:
● Remove mandatory car parking requirements for new housing and allow conversion of existing parking to bike storage
● Replace traffic studies with quantifying Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a more accurate measure of project impact, aiming to reduce the amount of time people have to spend behind the wheel. (learn more: CalTrans and SB373)
● Allow condo and apartment rentals to unbundle parking, which makes the cost of a parking space a separate, opt-in item for renters. (learn more: unbundled parking) ● Mitigate traffic and parking impacts and boost pedestrian and bicyclist rights, protections and accommodations, e.g. by requiring transit and bike-share subsidies for residents.
You also highlight transit-oriented development. You should be including the Rail/Trail in your corridors that are referenced in Policy 1.2 or other transit-oriented development policies.
Special Needs
Your policies related to persons with disabilities are conflated with families. You have policies that address each of the other categories (farmworkers, students, homeless). FWIW, the word “veterans” does not appear once in your Housing Plan, should it?
April 4 2023 Page 5 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.227
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
Policy 3.1 merges families and persons with disabilities and its objectives are all over the place:
preservation, childcare, development. Is this really two policies - one for families with children and the other for persons with disabilities?
Your policies to create housing for persons with disabilities feel incomplete and primarily in AFFH Policies (section 6). Housing Choices has specific suggestions for policies to support the disabled in the Housing Production or Affordable Housing or Special Needs, which generally include development of ELI units (as Housing Choices said in the workshop)
● Policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies (and include a Quantitative goal of ELI units with preference for people with developmental disabilities). ● For any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, i.e. providing Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
● Provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or which commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
Your policy 3.3 for the homeless includes “support housing solutions”, yet includes only one objective related to housing that is not shelter (Coral St). It is sad that you include TWO objectives related to unsanctioned camps which do nothing to house the unhoused, and your objective of waste disposal for those living in vehicles is a small step towards support of those whose only home is their vehicle. See above for the opportunity missed to connect the Housing Plan to the City’s Homelessness Action Plan April 4 2023 Page 6 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.228
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
DETAILED Feedback on Policies
POLICIES - HOUSING PRODUCTION
1.1a - could identify what buffer
1.1c - doesn’t this already exist? AFFH viewer has transit stops and area
1.2 (all of it) - most of these dates are the first two years. What is beyond that?
1.3a - What does it mean to “streamline and improve”? What’s your benchmark for “good enough” or “not good enough”? Is this objective simply to implement the system by December 2024?
1.3b - What does it mean to “promote efficiency and predictability”? What do you know now needs to improve towards greater project feasibility? Do you have any other references for best practices here? Is this objective met by simply having meetings? Or by developing an annual improvement plan?
1.3c - Great to see the date of January 2028 for elimination. Is this for housing of all types given that >97% are near transit?
1.3d - Seems the goal for fee review should go beyond making sure it covers City costs? Like the SRO in 5th cycle, what would be target or outcome desired for 6th cycle? ● Revise fees to incentivize larger multi-family housing (more bedrooms) over single family or SROs
● Consider other fee modifications that incentivize missing middle residential
1.3e - Good! Consider other options to produce housing: currently Single-Family and ADUs are ministerially approved
● Expand the types of projects eligible for ministerial approval by city staff, e.g. multifamily projects meeting objective standards that are under 50 units.
1.4 Consider moving the definition of “alternative housing types” to the Policy statement (and the Glossary!) - seems like you are considering “ co-housing, housing cooperatives, live/work” at least.
1.4b - Good! Why not commit to the annual meetings (like previous) and a resulting improvement plan? You had a stronger statement in 5th cycle:
Examine development regulations to identify potential barriers to the development of alternative types of housing and, if such barriers are found, develop actions to remove or modify them as feasible.
1.4c - is “non-traditional” the same as “alternative housing types”? Is this objective developing a proposal of sorts by some date and working with HCD? As it is, it’s really vague and hard to know when “encourage” is done. This is a repeat of Program 1.3 in 5th cycle April 4 2023 Page 7 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.229
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
1.5 General - Is “ADU” inclusive of “JADU”?
1.5b. - This is vague. Do you not already know ways you may modify the program “in a manner that facilitates the production of ADUs”? Here are some suggestions:
● Develop an ADU bonus program similar to San Diego’s, allowing the construction of one unrestricted ADU for every affordable ADU deed-restricted for 15 years. ● Reduction of parking requirements for attached or detached ADUs ● Develop an ADU ordinance that permanently removes owner-occupancy requirements beyond the sunset of state law.
● Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate- or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.
● You may also consider if the size of your ADUs/JADUs is an impediment.
1.5c -Good, though this seems to be multiple objectives, what part is new - the webpage update? The incentives? Seems you already have webpage with dev stds, fees and processes. If the incentives are new, consider it as a separate objective to identify incentives or development allowances that are more flexible. You might call it an ADU Bonus program such as:
● Develop an ADU bonus program similar to San Diego’s, allowing the construction of one unrestricted ADU for every affordable ADU deed-restricted for 15 years. ● Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate- or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.
1.5d - what is “streamlined processing” - what's the benchmark today? Aren’t they ministerially approved?
1.5f - vague - is this something you can do (develop amendments) annually?
1.5h - is this different from what you do now, which is considered an “informal, voluntary” survey?
1.5i - vague. What do you consider “applicable building standards”. What programs are you expanding? What resources are you improving?
1.6a - vague. You committed to doing a study in 5th cycle (Program 1.4)- what did you learn? What would be the targets for modifications?
1.6b - already part of your current program (1.4) - is there a new standard? What’s the new criteria? April 4 2023 Page 8 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.230
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
1.7 - How can each of these objectives be “ongoing”? Are there any milestones in the next 8 years?
POLICIES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
2.1 - This intro: “The City recognizes that mixed-income neighborhoods provide a variety of benefits to the City including a chance for residents to learn from others of different backgrounds and interests.This helps to broaden perspectives and deepen understanding of other people’s values and points of view, leading to more respect and understanding. ” is really odd. Is it income levels that encourage greater diversity? Or is it attainable housing that allows a diverse set of people to live in neighborhoods together?
2.1a - vague.
2.1b - oddly worded. Recommend:
● Commission studies to determine at what percentage an inclusionary rate becomes an impediment to housing development. Consider the impact on size of projects as well as affordability levels.
2.2b - vague - what might be the criteria?
2.2d - There are many housing bills - why would the lobbyist be focused just on funding affordable housing? This is a repeat of 5th cycle. You don’t appear to have lobbyists focus on anything else that would help get MORE housing - missing middle, preservation, etc.
Objectives 2.2e and 2.2f seem out of scope here when the focus is on regulatory and/or financial incentives.
2.3a - good to stay up to date on the State - what are the attributes of the local DBL that you want to “further facilitate production”? In the 5th cycle you indicated that “More work will be done regarding development agreements anticipated in the 2021-2023 time period.”
2.4a - What does “Coordinate with” mean? In the 5th cycle, you talk about partnering with affordable developers to obtain additional State HCD funding.
2.4b - Might you also set a target of units built in these partnerships?
2.4c - Might you also set a target of units built in these partnerships?
2.5 - repeat of 5th cycle - you already know from the work there that “Many units that appear to be at risk are part of a Section 8 program, which renews every five years. Thus, the City has been working with individual property owners to provide incentives to maintain affordability” You don’t mention anything about individual property owners (or landlords) in this objective. Housing Authority is probably one of the “interested agencies”?
April 4 2023 Page 9 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.231
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
2.5a “Work with interested agencies and community organizations to preserve at-risk units by monitoring their status, providing technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordability controls, and review tenant notification prior to project conversion.” (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)” ● Make more specific. You indicate that “Table D-15 below identifies deed-restricted, assisted rental properties within Santa Cruz, of which 444 units are at-risk of converting from affordable to market-rate units between 2023 and 2033” This objective can have a quantified target number.
● You can also consider other options for the funding - e.g. Create a publicly owned affordable housing developer non-profit that can apply for grant funding not available to government entities.
POLICIES - SPECIAL NEEDS and HOMELESSNESS
In the Past Performance, you mention the 2015 All In -Toward A Home For Every County Resident (All In) Plan https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/All-In-Santa-Cruz-County-Plan.pdf This has some very specific action strategies. Do any of them that relate to housing apply? Policy 3.1 merges families and persons with disabilities for “Special Needs”.The objectives are all over the place: preservation, childcare, development. Is this really two policies - one for families with children and the other for persons with disabilities?
Your policies to create housing for persons with disabilities is woefully inadequate. As you heard from Housing Choices during the workshop, a focus on developing ELI housing would be a good direction. ere are suggestions:
● Policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies (and include a Quantitative goal of ELI units with preference for people with developmental disabilities). ● For any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, i.e. providing Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
● Provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or which commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
3.2a - what does “assist” mean?
April 4 2023 Page 10 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.232
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
3.2b - How does the city “include childcare centers and facilities” in new residential developments and employment centers - is this on all projects - private, public, large, small? Is this on projects that have family-sized homes?
Note that 5th cycle had a more specific objective: Work with nonprofit organizations to identify proposed housing projects suitable to families with
children and consider providing financial assistance, subject to availability and City Council approval, to facilitate and encourage their development.
Overall - this policy is intended to support housing solutions in addition to supportive services. One of the objectives relates to housing if you consider the Coral St campus/navigation center housing. One relates to RV. Unsanctioned camps should not be part of the objectives, let alone two of them. In the Past Performance document, you indicate the strategic plan All In -Toward A Home For Every County Resident (All In).
3.3a - are there milestones from the three-year action plan? What does it mean to update “periodically”?
3.3c - what type of public data, system and metrics
3.3d - what is “related to homelessness response efforts” - what does it mean to “be a leader”? Is this intended to be on the model of HAP, but statewide?
3.3g - vague - what is benchmark? Is there a number of shelter spaces? What services?
3.3h - can this be more specific given that you have recently developed a team?
3.3i - what are the proactive steps? Why do you have an objective related to unsanctioned camps in HE
3.3k - Why do you have an objective related to unsanctioned camps in HE
3.4a - vague - what is “supporting” and “assistance”?
3.4b - how does the city “locate” PSH in residential setting or other locations
3.5 - check your spelling of UCSC throughout (not USCS) - phrases like “meet to collaborate on facilitating” are vague. Also, what does any of this really mean when you decide to sue the University?
3.5a - what does this mean?
3.5b - funding yes, but when it comes to facilitating construction of new student housing, what does this mean when you opposed SB886?
3.6 - OK - can you include the benchmark of $1M as approved by council?
POLICIES - HOUSING ASSISTANCE
4.1a - One of the few with a Quantitative metric!!
April 4 2023 Page 11 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.233
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
4.2a - how does helping buyers with homeownership opportunities fit under a policy of financing for construcction of new housing and supportive services?
4.2b - what does it mean to Support the continuation of the AHTF Where is this program from 5th cycle that is supposedly “Continued”: (Program 4.5): The City contracts with California Rural Legal Assistance, Senior Network Services, La Familia Center, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, and other organizations to provide services that improve housing opportunities.
POLICIES - NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY
Why is the phrase “neighborhood character” anywhere in these policies? You have clearly been working to shift to objective standards (multi-family) and it may be better to shift towards a vision of walkable neighborhoods, etc.
5.1a - the 5th cycle had specific areas. What are the goals here.
5.1b - what does it mean to “increase awareness of neighbors” - awareness by neighbors of the clean-up/disposal days? Or just awareness of neighbors so folks can snitch on each other.
5.2a - do you not have any sort of metrics from the years of doing this program that you can provide?
5.2b - how will you expand? Is working with other dept, community groups, etc. the expansion? How do you know you are reaching “people in need of help who are unaware of program or benefits”? Do you have some metric to know sucess
5.3 - Past performance says that UHRP is not active.
5.3a - do you have a target # of people to serve?
5.3b - this is super hard to parse. What is an example “housing habilitation program”? How do the projects for which you want to “particularly increase energy-efficiency” and low-incomes seniors get on the radar and how are they selected? \
5.4 - The outcomes of this Policy are vague and nearly impossible to understand. The objectives seem not to be limited to housing related itesm. “Outreach…for policy initiatives and projects that may affect those areas”? Gather input and feedback…regarding residents needs?
5.5 this is all about displacement - YAY!
5.5a - this seems very similar to 2.5
5.5b - yes, there are some key anti-displacement policies that are in the UC Berkeley (see above) April 4 2023 Page 12 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.234
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
POLICIES - AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Your first policy is about removing barriers to HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS? Take a look at how HCD talks about AFFH:
The goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all Californians.
6.1a - this has a metric! This seems not related to housing vouchers at all.
6.1f - ditto, not related to housing vouchers.
6..2a - this has a metric!
6.2f - Good idea, but how does this relate to affordable housing?
6.3 - the preamble to the objectives speaks to communications channels, but the objectives themselves include funding. - for 6.3b is there some benchmark?
6.4 - what is a “sensitive” population?
6.4a - how does this relate to displacement?
POLICIES - Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship
7.1 - Should this focus on water goals related to housing?
7.2a & b - can you refer to your Climate Action Plan which has more specific milestones to decarbonize and electrify existing buildings? Or is the point that you want to seek incentives beyond whats in the CAP?
7.3a - what does it mean to “facilitate”? What will change in GP and Zoning ordinance?
7.3b - is the outcome just collaboration - is there a way to identify more specific outcomes that relate to “link land uses and transportation systems” and promote bicycle and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods? Here are some ideas:
● Remove mandatory car parking requirements for new housing and allow conversion of existing parking to bike storage
● Replace traffic studies with quantifying Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a more accurate measure of project impact, aiming to reduce the amount of time people have to spend behind the wheel. (learn more: CalTrans and SB373)
April 4 2023 Page 13 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.235
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
● Allow condo and apartment rentals to unbundle parking, which makes the cost of a parking space a separate, opt-in item for renters. (learn more: unbundled parking) ● Mitigate traffic and parking impacts and boost pedestrian and bicyclist rights, protections and accommodations, e.g. by requiring transit and bike-share subsidies for residents.
7.4 the last objective is clearly related to housing. The other two are more general city objectives that may not fit in the HE?
April 4 2023 Page 14 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]
22.236
Notes on the Housing Element Update
The following are some notes and comments on the Housing Needs Assessment (appendix C) in the draft Santa Cruz Housing Element Update.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/92612 I found a few details in that section that were potentially inaccurate, or at least might be clarified a little for future versions of the document.
Each comment begins with a screenshot from the draft Update.
I also extended this analysis to include some demographic elements that were not covered in the draft. I’ve included a small part of that. The full study is looking at similar statistics over the entire Bay Area. It seems to me that an analysis of the entire region is required to make sense of how this is going to work.
This has been a rainy day project for me. Clearly we’ve had quite a bit of rain. ;-)
22.237
Changes in the County Age Distribution
This image is from the Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix C, sec 2 pg C-3.
First, a quibble. It is difficult to interpret that chart because the age bracket intervals are not uniform. Most are 5 year intervals but the 25 - 34, 35 - 44, and 45 - 54 brackets are 10 year intervals. Those shares will appear greater because of the longer time interval. It will be difficult to compare the chart visually to the “population pyramid” or a typical population distribution curve. See below for an example and a chart that shows the differences.
I am also not sure if the data used from the ACS S0101 table as was cited. Table DP05 in the ACS survey uses a mix of intervals that match the table above, though it includes separate brackets above the 65 yo bracket with 5 year intervals up to 85+ yo. Those could have been combined of course. See the link below for the original data. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++age&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP05 I prepared the following charts using ACS S0101 data from 2011 and 2021 using uniform 5 year increments (margin of error estimates <± 0.3%). The data are in the link below. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++age&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S0101
22.238
This chart shows the age distribution for CA and the US for 2011 and 2021. It’s a good introduction to the basic shape of an Age Distribution graph for a large population and is a useful baseline for comparisons with the age distribution in Santa Cruz. 1 Also note that CA has more people in the 25 - 45 yo brackets and slightly fewer in the 60+ yo brackets than the US. And the number of people in the <5 yo bracket is quite a bit lower. The reasons for those are obvious and well documented.
This chart above shows the specific ranges for the various age “generations” (baby boom, Gen-X, etc) for 2020.
1 Nerd note - the “boomer” and “millennial” bumps shift to the right (10 years) during the 2011 to 2021 interval in both of the graphs.
22.239
This chart shows a comparison between the age distribution for Santa Cruz County and CA for 2011 and 2021 using the data from ACS S0101. Typically this would be a column chart but I think the line graph is easier to follow.
Starting at the left side, the share of younger people in Santa Cruz is quite a bit smaller than the average in the state. That share dropped from 2011 to 2021 due to a change in the birth rate and out-migration of families in the child bearing age groups.
The very large university age population share was relatively constant during that interval. 2 The chart also shows a relatively large number of county residents in the 45 - 60 yo group in 2011, with a significant decline in that group’s population share by 2021. That is likely to be due to out-migration.
The share of city residents in the 60 - 75 yo group is relatively large compared to the state. That was also mentioned in the Housing Element Update, though I think there is a more nuanced understanding of that share than “a need for senior housing”. 2 The total enrollment at UCSC increased about 2.5k between 2011 and 2021 but that doesn’t show in these statistics. There are a few possibilities. The non-student population in the same age groups is likely to have declined about the same amount as the age groups above and below it, about 2%. That accounts for about 1.2k. It is also possible that many more students live in the county since the available rental housing supply in the city has been very low.
22.240
To give you another perspective, this chart shows the age distribution by population shares of Santa Cruz County, San Francisco County, and CA.
Note the large shares in the age brackets that are common in San Francisco, and the very low shares of people in younger age groups. San Francisco is definitely an extreme case.
22.241
Transposing the data to track the year over year changes in each age group’s share is useful.
I’ve let the vertical scale vary on the following graphs to show detail. Keep that in mind when comparing them.
The <5 and 5-9 yo age group shares are declining over the 2011 - 2021 interval.
The 10 - 14 yo age group and the 80+ yo group shares are relatively flat.
22.242
The 15 - 19 and 20 - 24 yo groups include university students so they are a relatively large share of the city’s population.
The 25 - 29 yo group includes some of the university population and the share is relatively flat.
I left in the shares for the 30 - 34 yo age group to help read the scale in this graph. The rest of the brackets are in the same area.
22.243
This chart shows a significant decline in the 30 - 59 yo brackets with the exception of the 45 - 49 yo group’s share, which is fairly flat.
These are significant. The age groups in the lower half of that range are more likely to have children. People in the 30 - 59 yo age brackets also typically contribute significantly to the local GDP.
22.244
The 60 - 74 yo group shares increased substantially between 2011 and 2021. This was also noted in the Housing Element Update.
There was a small increase in the 75 - 79 yo group share.
These year over year charts show that, other than residents in the university age groups, the share of people in all of the age categories below 60 yo are declining. I did not include the charts but I can show that the decline is monotonic year over year - e.g. each group’s share dropped a little every year.
The increase in the 60 - 74 yo groups are very likely due to migration into the city.
22.245
A study of the county shows similar patterns.
This chart from that study, with the year over year change in the highest income bracket’s share highlighted, gives a very clear idea of what is happening.
22.246
County to county domestic migration data is available here:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/
I have not studied this at the city level and I am not sure if the data is available.
The following charts show the year over year migration patterns between Bay Area counties.
There has been a fairly large migration from Santa Clara County (and, to a lesser extent, other Bay Area Counties) into Santa Cruz County over the last decade. The charts above indicate that the migration rate is accelerating. That has been happening in the other counties surrounding Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties as well.
Aside from university students coming from other counties, the increase in the 60 - 74 yo age group is likely to be accounted for by the in-migration noted above.
22.247
Household Income
This image is from the Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix C, sec 3 pg C-13. It uses data from the City.
The chart is a snapshot of household income in the city. It shows the number of households with income at various levels.
The source of the data is not cited but it seems to be from the ACS S0190 2020 table cited elsewhere in the Housing Element Update.
https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++household+income&tid=ACSST 5Y2021.S1901
22.248
I tried to reproduce the chart from that data and found that the chart above applies only to “married couple families”.
The screenshot above shows the different Household type columns in the ACS S0190 table.
Note the median income differences in each bracket as well. The median income cited in the Update is $86,618 which aligns with the “family” category. The median income of the “married couple families” group is much higher at $156,806. It is a much wealthier cohort.
22.249
The chart above shows the difference in the distribution using the two household types.
The distribution of household incomes is still heavily weighted to the higher income brackets, though the $200k+ share is now a little over 20% instead of 31%. The share of lower income households is substantially larger than the chart included in the update. This is likely to be due, in part, to the large number of university students with no or small income. But a close look at the table shows that the number of families in the lower income brackets is often about twice as large as the chart in the update indicates. And the “non-family” households have much higher shares than those shown in the update chart.
22.250
The chart above shows the city’s Household Income Distribution using all household types in the city using the income brackets in the 2021 ACS B19037 table. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++household+income+by+age&tid =ACSDT5Y2021.B19037
I think it is a good idea to include the entire range of households in the chart and explain the complexity of the household types.
22.251
The median income varies based on the household type as well (this is county data - the city statistics are similar). And it is increasing year over year.
The charts below show a demographic explanation for that increase.
22.252
I think it is useful to consider the year over year change in the Household Income by Age distribution in this analysis. I’ve studied that for the county. I can extend this to the city easily.
The youngest group is relatively flat, which is not a surprise.
The 25 - 44 yo group shows a decline in the number of households below the housing income 3 .
And there is a significant increase in the number of households above that income. 3 The income necessary to buy or rent a house. That is difficult to define precisely but it is at least a little higher than the median income in the area.
22.253
The 45 to 64 yo group shows the same year over year changes. There are fewer households with income below the housing income and quite a few more above that income. he
The 65+ yo group was relatively flat at lower household income levels but increased significantly at the higher levels.