There is an important bill which will be voted on this week. It takes away local control on what will be built in cities throughout California.
Read the bill here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50
Santa Cruz needs more affordable units much more than market-rate units. Market-rate units are not being rented as you can check by going to craigslist: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/
and click on Scz at the top of the page. SB50 does not help to add more affordable units and takes away local control.
A state-mandated inclusionary housing requirement, applicable everywhere, could help with creating more affordable housing. SB 50 undermines the ability of local communities to solve the problems in a way that will not undermine the integrity of their communities.
****Please write Bill Monning ASAP Vote will be Thurs., Jan 30 senator.monning@senate.ca.gov
The following is from the League of California Cities:
Action Requested: Immediately call your Senator and send an Oppose Unless Amended letter on SB 50 Planning and Zoning: Housing Development Incentives If it passes the bill must be heard on the Senate floor by January 31, 2020.
· Bill outline, talking points, and sample letter provided.
What Does SB 50 Specifically Do?
Recent amendments attempt to create an alternative planning process for jurisdictions to develop a “local flexibility plan” that, if approved by HCD, would exempt cities from nearly all aspects of SB 50 with the exception of requiring fourplexes in single-family zones. Unfortunately given the lack of clarity and legislative direction, we can’t evaluate whether the “local flexibility plan” is a viable alternative.
Wastes time and money. SB 50 would greatly undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are certified by HCD, and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). By allowing developers to override state approved housing plans, SB 50 seriously calls to question the need for cities to develop these community based plans and the justification for spending millions of state and local funds on the planning process.
Gives away planning and zoning decisions to developers and transit agencies, who are unaccountable to local voters. Housing developers and transit agencies would have the power to determine housing densities, heights up to 55 feet, parking requirements, and design review standards for “transit-rich housing projects” within one-half mile of a major transit stop. For those “transit-rich housing projects” within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor, developers would be able to determine housing density, and parking requirements above .5 spots per unit.
Creates difficult to define terms. As presently drafted, it is very difficult to determine what constitutes a “jobs-rich area” since the HCD and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) are largely tasked with making that determination.
Provides greater density and no transportation solutions. SB 50 would require cities to allow greater density in communities that are high opportunity and jobs rich, but may lack access to public transit. This seems at odds with many state policies that encourage and incentivize more dense housing near transit so that individuals may become less dependent on automobiles.
Creates arbitrary and unfair exemptions. SB 50 allows small cities in small counties to be exempt from the most extreme provisions. Shouldn’t all jurisdictions have the ability to have a community-led planning process that takes into account local needs and input as long as state objectives are still met? Instead of arbitrarily establishing a population metric, wouldn’t it be much more appropriate to consider the full range of community characteristics when determining which areas of the state SB 50 should apply.
Do not wait. Write Bill Monning now stating you oppose SB50. Please use this email: senator.monning@senate.ca.gov
It is only by all of us writing we have a chance at a choice on what is built in Santa Cruz. Thank you.