Santa Cruz

City of Santa Cruz APR was approved for submission to HCD

​

Santa Cruz YIMBY letter - summary of our input:  Santa Cruz’s 2024 APR reflects strong housing progress, with permits issued for 653 homes—including a substantial number of Very Low and Low Income units. Key projects like the 100% affordable Downtown Library project and 925 Water Street are moving forward, and the city continues to lead in both policy and production. Several 2024 Housing Element deliverables are already underway, including the Downtown Plan Expansion, Objective Standards updates, and changes to the density bonus and related policies to align with state law. Looking ahead, major tenant protection programs are due in 2025, including proactive renter outreach (Program 6.1e), anti-displacement policies (5.5b), and a relocation ordinance update (6.4b). We’re especially watching Program 2.2g, which would allow 100% affordable projects by-right in residential and mixed-use zones—a major opportunity, but one that could face delays if environmental review and Coastal Commission work doesn’t begin soon. Continued staff capacity and council support will be critical to keeping momentum going.

​

No discussion, this was on consent agenda.

Janine Roeth Housing Element Watchdog Check-in Agenda 

​

- Which city(s) are you monitoring, and which chapter(s) if any are you coordinating with?

    - Santa Cruz county, 5 jurisdictions  

- Do you know if your city committed to a rezoning?

    - All jurisdictions except Capitola committed 

    - What is the deadline for this rezoning?

    - All following all, so 3 years, unless don’t get certified by april 15 in which case goes to 1 year 

- What policies did your city commit to enacting? (If no, ask if any city-owned sites are on the site inventory.)

    -  Which ones are you most excited about?

        - Development constraint elimination 

        - Infill missing middle housing 

- When are the upcoming public hearings or housing element updates?

    - Not sure 

SCC staff are insulating their work from council. May be an attempt to minimize the work necessary to implement the housing element.

Information item - Planners presented overview of Housing Element, whats included, focus on new reqs, timeline slide. Supervisors gave comments, asked a few questions.

Learned that the County has put out RFP for consultant to handle public engagement and expects to send HCD two drafts. The second one will be the adopted BoS version by deadline of 12/31/23, and county expects some back and forth on that and HCD certification in 2024

Meeting was on HE contract and a guidance resolution. Both were approved.

​

29.1.

Approval of a Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates for Consultant Services for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (PL)

Motion carried to direct the City Manager to execute the contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $260,769 to procure consultant services to complete the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

29.2.

Resolution Providing Guidance to the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (CN)

Resolution No. NS-30,004 was adopted https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/RESOLUTION.DOCX.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1931&itemId=24291&publishId=34108&isSection=False&isAttachment=True

providing guidance to the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process, with the following changes to the resolution:

Add:

“WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is one of the least affordable communities in the country and is experiencing a severe housing crisis for moderate, low, and very low income residents.”

“WHEREAS, a significant percentage of the state’s target of RHNA numbers to the City are for housing units to serve low and very low income residents, which are the most difficult to construct.”

Council received a presentation on Annual Progress Report for 2021 Discusssion and accepted the report.  It was an earlier agenda item on Flexible Density Units that was contentious.

The planning commission is considering an illegal ordinance to require 20% of units in density bonus projects be BMR, in violation of state law. 

Ambag approved a rhna methodology. 

City Council received update from Heather Adamson (AMBAG staff) on current draft RHNA Methodology for COG that will go to board of directors on Dec 8.  Areas of interest from council members included the priority factors like AFFH, and the impact on the city's proposed allocation an the process/timeline for HCD review of methodology.  City Planning Staff also presented on the status of 5th cycle RHNA and some implications of the 6th cycle with its higher number, esp on zoning. Areas of interest from council members included consequences,such as risks to grant $ and loss of local control such as SB35. Staff clarified the different consequences for non-compliant housing element, and also for not being on time with reports which are different from those related to lack of progress or not getting zoning completed w/in a year.  Other questions including what counts towards RHNA, including ADUs, DBL units and UCSC dorms. Public comment included NIMBYs who seemed surprised at the high allocation, distrusted the source data that informed methodology or other specifics and felt the city council should push back. YIMBYs spoke more positively about the methodology and opportunity to address housing, equity and climate (and the reality that asking for less # means asking another jurisdication to take on more #.)

It was disappointing to see how little the Council members seemed to know about the process.  So little that it seemed that they must be feigning ignorance so they could pretend to be surprised at how high the number of homes required in the City during the Sixth cycle would be.

They seemed to be preparing to protest to AMBAG.

Lots of whining about how the numbers were unrealistic and unfair.  One council member said with a straight face that the City is "built out".

Disappointing that City Council is only now beginning to engage on the Housing Element, since the  City will presumably need to do a lot of public outreach and the upzoning to accommodate the necessary housing will be a long and difficult process.  

- Selection of draft RHNA Methodology + continuation of public hearing to be deferred until December 8th special meeting

- AMBAG (finally!) brought incorporation of AFFH factor into methodology to board - no action was taken on it, but majority of board of directors were in support

- Salinas Valley jurisdictions (namely City of Soledad) would like to see farmworker housing set aside incorporated into methodology

- Water constantly being brought up as a concern by Monterey Peninsula jurisdictions