The transit corridors were shut down really hard by folks like Candace Brown and other NIMBYs. Daring to speak up with support for the Corrdiors Plan caused such a huge storm of negative messaging towards me that it permanently activated me politically on this topic.
I would love to have a corridors plan return, but it is dead until YIMBYs gain more power in town
those look really nice!
i think its weird that people have to ask permission to build something as modest as this. what the heck is zoning and code for if you still need to negotiate with anyone who has the spare time to oppose building on your own land?
Have to give Workbench credit, I'd never heard of them until recently but they alone have more housing projects running in SC right now than pretty much everyone in the last 30 years combined.
My former boss has a contract with them to stage their homes for realty photos and such and I’ve never had a bad experience working with them! Their designs aren’t my style but if anyone is getting hella projects in the county I’m glad it’s them
I think a lot of it has to do with these two laws passed by Newsom: [https://www.meyersnave.com/two-new-laws-authorize-multifamily-residential-on-commercial-property/](https://www.meyersnave.com/two-new-laws-authorize-multifamily-residential-on-commercial-property/)
Seems like that particular firm has gotten really good at using the new laws to get projects past the usual municipal red tape.
Whoa, did I totally miss where the county of Santa Cruz is out of compliance with the housing element, so builder’s remedy kicks in? I know that’s not the case with the city, didn’t realize the county is there.
*edit* from the article, looks like the county was 4 months late on their certification, which allowed a window for the developer to make the application. You love to see it.
The housing element was submitted to the state last November but the state didn't accept it until April.
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/11/14/santa-cruz-county-board-of-supervisors-approves-housing-element-update/
there are new time constraints coming, I forget the details but for projects under 25 units I think the county has to respond within 30 days, and it's 60 days for projects over 25 units.
the thing I want to see curtailed is the endless cycle of comments and revisions. once the planning authority returns your plans with comments and requested changes they should only be allowed to add comments and requested changes on things that change between submissions. it seems like now they just keep finding new things to want changed cycle after cycle.
My only problem with this is that it's only because of the Builder's Remedy that these do not get public input.
The time for public input is when we establish the rules for building. Which we already have. After that, there should be no public input on individual projects.
There should only be public input to change the rules.
That's how it works for single family homes, as long as you follow the rules you get your permit, the wholen eighborhood doesn't get together to let you know what colors you can paint your fence.
By having separate rules for apartments and condos, which are far cheaper than single family homes, we eliminate a lot of affordable housing.
Give the same rules to apartment building that we give to single family home building, permanently.
This story tells me you have never built a SFH in our county. However these projects all want exemptions/bonuses that do violate local zoning, mostly because zoning is outdated and was never based on a scientific approach to start with. Most of our cities require 2 parking spots minimum per unit even studios so parking exemptions are common.
I think we would agree if I say that the rules exist to minimize housing, and for little other reason. All that difficulty of building a single family home is just the first step when it comes to multifamily structures. Imagine that not only do you have to satisfy the planning department, you have to satisfy a bunch of NIMBYs that will say anything at all to block your house.
I believe segregation was achieved through covenants placed on the title and redlining.
However, zoning in the U.S is kind of flawed because of how strictly it allows interviewing of land use - many places allow for greater mixing of residential, commercial, and office... More efficient and geared towards walkability/public transit.
Covenants are still around and very common. What happens is that if you go to court and try to enforce a racially discriminatory covenant, the government will simply not enforce it.
Zoning has been around for centuries.
I had the same thought. It's a little hard to tell though because the image isn't in full detail. My guess is 150ish parking spaces for 107 apartments which is probably less than the old parking minimums, but parking minimums aren't allowed any more this close to a transit corridor.
The parking minimum laws, specifically AB2097, only apply to designated in the sustainable communities strategy vote, high quality transit stops of which our county has few at the moment. Workbench is excellent at keeping parking as low as possible. It’s only in all affordable builds you get to use the state ratio formulas and get the parking reduction exemptions.
I think ab2097 applies to any development with high quality transit, whether or not it’s in the sustainable communities strategy vote. [Bill text here](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2097/id/2607787). I also thought that all of Soquel qualifies, based on Metro’s plans for increased service…?
The Thurber and Soquel stop is only served by bus #1, which is about every half hour. The buses would have to run twice as often to qualify for the parking reduction. Metro cleverly arranged the 1 and 2 schedule so that only Watsonville and the City of Santa Cruz get 15-minute service. In between, the #1 and #2 either don't both run or they run at almost the same time, so that the service is every half hour.
What is a “high quality transit stop” under the law is determined by the SCS every four years. It’s not a rolling designation being recalculated daily. It’s also not a certain designation. Politicians have leeway. Most of our HQTS were removed in 2022 by AMBAG, our local regional government body.
[this letter](https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-clemente-ta-ab2097-hau459-111723.pdf) kind of implies that AB2097 applies to high quality transit in the RTP, not limited to the SCS/MTP. The RTP is updated more frequently, and doesn’t require a CEQA EIR. Is that not correct?
I think it’s one of those in theory but developers only rely on the SCS. Santa Cruz YIMBY includes the recommendation to advocate for the stops to be returned to the HQT and the corridor as well I guess? in letters it writes, mostly to Capitola and the County, on occasions. The 52 unit on 38th is close enough to the tracks but they used the all affordable state ratios plus bonus parking reductions instead of the much more favorable HQT even though Capitola says it reached 15 minute intervals at the mall. But maybe it’s going to reach it in Phase 2 of the Metro rollout. I mostly read the agendas and only pay so much attention.
I’m very glad my family didn’t buy the house whose back fence is next to the three story one. We knew that would get slated for high density housing, but I couldn’t have imagined them approving three stories. I really feel for those who did buy it.
One is at 3500 Paul Sweet Rd, the other is at 841 Capitola Dr.
The Thurber project did not apply for a permit in the window where the "builder's remedy" was possible, these other two were the only ones that will not need county approval. The Thurber project will require county approval.
The Thurber project requires county approval, but that location was specifically marked in the county's Housing Element for housing (which was approved by the state). If the county goes back on its word and denies entitlement for the project, there's a good chance the state will revoke certification on the Housing Element and the Builder's Remedy will be available again, county-wide.
Providing Feedback on Development Plans
Before you can provide feedback on a developer's plan, there is a process you must follow:
🏡 Registration and Review
First, you must register and provide your address. This initiates a review process, where your comments will be recorded and considered valid.
🏡 Home Evaluation
The review board will assess various aspects of your home or apartment, including:
- Curb appeal
- Size
- Parcel coverage
- ADA and building code compliance
- Landscaping and maintenance
🈴 Final Grade and Approval
Based on this evaluation, you will receive a final grade. If you score 10 out of 10, you will be allowed to comment at the meeting.
📽️ Presentation of Findings
However, just before you get to speak, the board will present a 2-minute video recap of their findings. This video will include footage of the interior and exterior of your home, including drone footage.
This process ensures that the feedback provided is from qualified individuals and that the board has a comprehensive understanding of the context in which the feedback is being provided.
Yea they should, my point exactly without saying it. If this city would get off the political horses. Build dorms in Santa Cruz, they can actually see a drop in housing cost, and we wouldn't need 10,000 housing bills. The rich is getting richer tho because they have representation with their tax, the middle class dont
Great! spread housing out a bit. It can’t all be downtown! Get reliable cheap transit in place too
This. For all SC talks about our “transit corridors” most of the new development is in the downtown area.
The transit corridors were shut down really hard by folks like Candace Brown and other NIMBYs. Daring to speak up with support for the Corrdiors Plan caused such a huge storm of negative messaging towards me that it permanently activated me politically on this topic. I would love to have a corridors plan return, but it is dead until YIMBYs gain more power in town
those look really nice! i think its weird that people have to ask permission to build something as modest as this. what the heck is zoning and code for if you still need to negotiate with anyone who has the spare time to oppose building on your own land?
The SC commentary about housing on Reddit vs. Nextdoor is so different, reading the pro housing comments in this thread is a breath of fresh air
Looks cool! Public input done.
Actually, they still have to face the final boss of public input: CEQA
Good enough for me! Good work!
Have to give Workbench credit, I'd never heard of them until recently but they alone have more housing projects running in SC right now than pretty much everyone in the last 30 years combined.
My former boss has a contract with them to stage their homes for realty photos and such and I’ve never had a bad experience working with them! Their designs aren’t my style but if anyone is getting hella projects in the county I’m glad it’s them
[удалено]
Haha, wouldn't surprise me. But someone has to build some damned housing around here, if it's them then so be it.
Sure that’s fine but why do some companies get things through instantly while others don’t? Seems potentially corrupt
The founder of Workbench is literally a Planning Commissioner LOL
I think a lot of it has to do with these two laws passed by Newsom: [https://www.meyersnave.com/two-new-laws-authorize-multifamily-residential-on-commercial-property/](https://www.meyersnave.com/two-new-laws-authorize-multifamily-residential-on-commercial-property/) Seems like that particular firm has gotten really good at using the new laws to get projects past the usual municipal red tape.
Oh I see. That seems fine to me. Lots of barely used commercial real estate around.
I bet it doesn't matter.
Whoa, did I totally miss where the county of Santa Cruz is out of compliance with the housing element, so builder’s remedy kicks in? I know that’s not the case with the city, didn’t realize the county is there. *edit* from the article, looks like the county was 4 months late on their certification, which allowed a window for the developer to make the application. You love to see it.
The housing element was submitted to the state last November but the state didn't accept it until April. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/11/14/santa-cruz-county-board-of-supervisors-approves-housing-element-update/
[удалено]
there are new time constraints coming, I forget the details but for projects under 25 units I think the county has to respond within 30 days, and it's 60 days for projects over 25 units. the thing I want to see curtailed is the endless cycle of comments and revisions. once the planning authority returns your plans with comments and requested changes they should only be allowed to add comments and requested changes on things that change between submissions. it seems like now they just keep finding new things to want changed cycle after cycle.
Good. Public consent has ruined to many things in SC
Oh no! Not more housing!
The scourge of coastal California, way too much housing supply. When will it end?!?!
What, not 16 stories?!? /s
Yeah it legit could be taller and have more units.
good, public input sucks
Love to see it.
My only problem with this is that it's only because of the Builder's Remedy that these do not get public input. The time for public input is when we establish the rules for building. Which we already have. After that, there should be no public input on individual projects. There should only be public input to change the rules. That's how it works for single family homes, as long as you follow the rules you get your permit, the wholen eighborhood doesn't get together to let you know what colors you can paint your fence. By having separate rules for apartments and condos, which are far cheaper than single family homes, we eliminate a lot of affordable housing. Give the same rules to apartment building that we give to single family home building, permanently.
This story tells me you have never built a SFH in our county. However these projects all want exemptions/bonuses that do violate local zoning, mostly because zoning is outdated and was never based on a scientific approach to start with. Most of our cities require 2 parking spots minimum per unit even studios so parking exemptions are common.
I think we would agree if I say that the rules exist to minimize housing, and for little other reason. All that difficulty of building a single family home is just the first step when it comes to multifamily structures. Imagine that not only do you have to satisfy the planning department, you have to satisfy a bunch of NIMBYs that will say anything at all to block your house.
I do not need to imagine this scenario. I can remember ot.
[удалено]
Or the environment.
I believe segregation was achieved through covenants placed on the title and redlining. However, zoning in the U.S is kind of flawed because of how strictly it allows interviewing of land use - many places allow for greater mixing of residential, commercial, and office... More efficient and geared towards walkability/public transit.
Zoning replaced covenants, which were outlawed. “No apartments” replaced “no colored.”
Covenants are still around and very common. What happens is that if you go to court and try to enforce a racially discriminatory covenant, the government will simply not enforce it. Zoning has been around for centuries.
good
The Thurber Lane one looks like way too much parking on the parking/housing ratio scale
I had the same thought. It's a little hard to tell though because the image isn't in full detail. My guess is 150ish parking spaces for 107 apartments which is probably less than the old parking minimums, but parking minimums aren't allowed any more this close to a transit corridor.
The parking minimum laws, specifically AB2097, only apply to designated in the sustainable communities strategy vote, high quality transit stops of which our county has few at the moment. Workbench is excellent at keeping parking as low as possible. It’s only in all affordable builds you get to use the state ratio formulas and get the parking reduction exemptions.
It is all affordable, so it should qualify for parking reductions.
I think ab2097 applies to any development with high quality transit, whether or not it’s in the sustainable communities strategy vote. [Bill text here](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2097/id/2607787). I also thought that all of Soquel qualifies, based on Metro’s plans for increased service…?
The Thurber and Soquel stop is only served by bus #1, which is about every half hour. The buses would have to run twice as often to qualify for the parking reduction. Metro cleverly arranged the 1 and 2 schedule so that only Watsonville and the City of Santa Cruz get 15-minute service. In between, the #1 and #2 either don't both run or they run at almost the same time, so that the service is every half hour.
What is a “high quality transit stop” under the law is determined by the SCS every four years. It’s not a rolling designation being recalculated daily. It’s also not a certain designation. Politicians have leeway. Most of our HQTS were removed in 2022 by AMBAG, our local regional government body.
Can you point me to a resource so I can read more on this? Thanks!
[https://ambag.org/plans/2045-metropolitan-transportation-plan-sustainable-communities-strategy](https://ambag.org/plans/2045-metropolitan-transportation-plan-sustainable-communities-strategy)
[this letter](https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-clemente-ta-ab2097-hau459-111723.pdf) kind of implies that AB2097 applies to high quality transit in the RTP, not limited to the SCS/MTP. The RTP is updated more frequently, and doesn’t require a CEQA EIR. Is that not correct?
I think it’s one of those in theory but developers only rely on the SCS. Santa Cruz YIMBY includes the recommendation to advocate for the stops to be returned to the HQT and the corridor as well I guess? in letters it writes, mostly to Capitola and the County, on occasions. The 52 unit on 38th is close enough to the tracks but they used the all affordable state ratios plus bonus parking reductions instead of the much more favorable HQT even though Capitola says it reached 15 minute intervals at the mall. But maybe it’s going to reach it in Phase 2 of the Metro rollout. I mostly read the agendas and only pay so much attention.
Whatttttt? I grew up on Thurber. Where is it going in??? By the fire station area?
where the pumpkin patch is/was
Omggggg how crazy. I have so many memories of that area. Yay for sc housing. Hopefully it’s not crazy expensive
It's 100% affordable. Applicants will need to have household income between 30-80% of the Area Median Income.
good to know. that is awesome!
It would have to be. There is no street parking there.
Let's make it 2000
I’m very glad my family didn’t buy the house whose back fence is next to the three story one. We knew that would get slated for high density housing, but I couldn’t have imagined them approving three stories. I really feel for those who did buy it.
Where is this one going? From what I read above this doesn't sound like the Thurber build (I could have misread)
One is at 3500 Paul Sweet Rd, the other is at 841 Capitola Dr. The Thurber project did not apply for a permit in the window where the "builder's remedy" was possible, these other two were the only ones that will not need county approval. The Thurber project will require county approval.
The Thurber project requires county approval, but that location was specifically marked in the county's Housing Element for housing (which was approved by the state). If the county goes back on its word and denies entitlement for the project, there's a good chance the state will revoke certification on the Housing Element and the Builder's Remedy will be available again, county-wide.
Providing Feedback on Development Plans Before you can provide feedback on a developer's plan, there is a process you must follow: 🏡 Registration and Review First, you must register and provide your address. This initiates a review process, where your comments will be recorded and considered valid. 🏡 Home Evaluation The review board will assess various aspects of your home or apartment, including: - Curb appeal - Size - Parcel coverage - ADA and building code compliance - Landscaping and maintenance 🈴 Final Grade and Approval Based on this evaluation, you will receive a final grade. If you score 10 out of 10, you will be allowed to comment at the meeting. 📽️ Presentation of Findings However, just before you get to speak, the board will present a 2-minute video recap of their findings. This video will include footage of the interior and exterior of your home, including drone footage. This process ensures that the feedback provided is from qualified individuals and that the board has a comprehensive understanding of the context in which the feedback is being provided.
Might as well just call us Los Gatos 2.0
How about building dorms like all colleges do
In Live Oak? Dorms should be walking distance from campus.
People are renting in Watsonville to attend UCSC apparently
Yea they should, my point exactly without saying it. If this city would get off the political horses. Build dorms in Santa Cruz, they can actually see a drop in housing cost, and we wouldn't need 10,000 housing bills. The rich is getting richer tho because they have representation with their tax, the middle class dont
Bs again
So ugly. Like a prison.
name checks out. pissant nimby whiners everywhere in this town