Response to Housing for People Initiative

by | Sep 7, 2023 | Uncategorized

What do you think about the Measure M?

The initiative would do two things:

1. Require that any City proposal to increase building heights above current General Plan limits be approved by a vote of the people. (This would require a vote of the people on the City Council’s proposed General Plan amendment to allow 12 story buildings in the South of Laurel area of Downtown)

2. Require a minimum 25% affordable units in all new developments of 30 units or more. (current requirement is 20%)

How is this initiative related to sustainable transportation? Well, CFST’s mission includes supporting housing affordability. Frequent transit depends on increasing density near transit corridors. Yet San Francisco has high density and good transit in neighborhoods of two and three stories. I wonder, do we need 12 story buildings to reach our state mandated goals for affordable housing? The FAQ on the Housing For People Initiative website responds that existing zoning allows for 8,364 units, far more than the 3,736 units that the State requires Santa Cruz to build by 2031. I also wonder about how living in tall buildings affects the sense of community in the neighborhood.

 Response 1

I hope the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation opposes this measure.  We DO need more places with more height allowed in order to meet housing needs.  While this is being opposed, nearly anywhere else in the city will be opposed even more, as you probably well know.  I’d love to see this many more people living downtown.  And even in SF, 25% inclusionary stopped nearly all housing development.  (That said, I’ve always said we could get a higher inclusionary rate to work like that here IF we pulled back on the very high rate of special taxation of all new housing development that prioritizes so many other topics over affordability in our housing development requirements, but the city isn’t remotely close to doing that).

To meet state requirements we have to zone for a lot more housing than the exact RHNA requirements because of the likelihood of development.  Most properties won’t get developed in any given decade.  We have to zone for enough housing that it is actually likely that the RHNA numbers will be met/exceeded (note that they are a minimum).
The problems with getting more affordable housing abound.  Zoning is definitely one of the problems.  Yes, lack of subsidy is another big problem.  Cost is another one; a portion of those costs are driven by local policies, others by state policies… it’s a long list.
Taller buildings in a place that actually is likely to be redeveloped also allow more housing to be built more quickly, which I think we desperately need… I would go taller, because at some point it actually is feasible to get a higher inclusionary %…

Thanks!

Response 2

Note that the city of Barcelona has a population density about 11x that of Santa Cruz. In its highest-density neighborhood (Eixample) with a population density about 30x that of Santa Cruz, the height limit is 5 stories or 20 meters. Density does not require tall buildings.

There are many issues confronting our city and the so-called Housing for People initiative only addresses a tiny subset. However, I think it’s a good step, and if it passes would re-assert the capacity of voters to have a say in city land use policy.

Response 3

My concern is not the rare possibility of 12 story luxury condos but the very low density zoning in many very urban, walkable, pricey residential neighborhoods. These days in order to avoid losing good light industrial jobs and the last remaining local businesses, people are urging new infill housing not in existing commercial and industrial zones but directly in the most “HIGH RESOURCE” residential neighborhoods. I noticed someone at the conference brought this up but the panelists never responded. So therefore I am concerned that this initiative would block the city from doing the right thing if they were to allow medium density housing in the exclusive inner walkable neighborhoods (which are all currently low density and exclusionary). I feel that, while not politically very feasible, the only way to make a real dent in inequality and outrageous rents is not building a few very high cost affordable units, but to implement across the board policies and taxes that have been done in other countries: hefty house flipping tax, vacancy tax, and second home tax, plus strong rent control, and ban on all corporate as well as foreign ownership of houses. I know it sounds radical but I just haven’t seen anything else actually make a difference!

 

Response 4
I think it’s reasonable to allow people to vote on height limitations, within reason. If
it’s taken to extremes, and no one can have a 3 story house outside of downtown,
not so reasonable.
But the 25%, no matter how good it feels, and how badly we need it, may not fly.
Builders build what they can afford to build. To raise the affordable percentage, we
may need to subsidize. To the best of my knowledge, everything now being built
with a larger affordable percentage is subsidized. I would not make such a rule
if it prevents housing from getting built.
Response 5
While I am concerned by the energy-inefficient nature of buildings over 10 stories, I don’t think this is an appropriate thing to have a public referendum decide. I think that the affordable housing % minimum part of the petition sounds great but the height limits are too technical for the public to be voting on. If there are technological advances in the future that solve for the energy-inefficiency of tall buildings, they should be a viable option to increase density of urban cores everywhere – including in Santa Cruz.
Propose to strip the height limit from the language and require more affordability or contribution by the developer to the affordable housing fund.
Response 6
Two issues I am concerned about:
1) water supply for the increasing number of residences, and
2)  Law of Ancient Lights.  In NYC and other major metropolitan areas, multi-stories buildings are required to respect the Law of Ancient Lights, meaning the new building should not totally block light to existing buildings.  To accommodate this, set backs and such are included in the building designs.  
Response 7
I think it’s pretty clear that we are suffering a climate crisis due to human induced global warming.  Studies have clearly  demonstrated that individuals living in dense areas have a much reduced carbon footprint.  If one really cares about global warming then being in favor of increasing the density of Santa Cruz is the appropriate stance to take.  I am 100 % in favor of tall buildings downtown.  For all the so called environmentalists in Santa Cruz:  If you’re going to talk the talk,  then walk the walk.
Response 8
As for the initiative, I think it is a good step.  If nothing else, it brings into the public awareness what is being planned and hopefully empowers those most affected to have some input. I  hope it at least slightly alters the imbalance of power the developers have enjoyed in having scaled back the “affordability” percentage from what it was at 25% in the past.  I also strongly support the allocation and creation of green space and recreational possibilities in the downtown neighborhood.  As in Beach Flats, both areas are impoverished in terms of green space.  Without the Commons that many of us wanted, the downtown remains over grown with concrete.
Response 9
My primary concern – solely on the transportation subject- is how many of the thousands of new residents will be driving over the hill to the tech jobs that pay the salaries needed to afford these new high rises?
Employers are requiring an increasing number of workers to show up on person and these new developments do not appear to have any method of not causing increased traffic over the hill to silicone valley .
Saying the new residents won’t have cars and will take transit is an unsubstantiated fantasy- in my view !

See also my guest opinion in Lookout Santa Cruz.  -Rick

2 Comments

  1. Michael Pisano
    Michael Pisano on September 7, 2023 at 3:22 pm

    I would like to see a hydrogen-fueled-electric TIG/m double-decker tram go from the clock tower to the boardwalk on Pacific Ave, or from Harvey West Park to the Boardwalk.