State housing payments have aimed to facilitate extra building, however some residents fear about unintended penalties. (Josh Olalde — Unsplash)
Why we wrote this story: Santa Cruz County’s state representatives make huge choices that have an effect on our lives. We would like you to know their positions and the way they voted.
SANTA CRUZ >> State Assemblymember Mark Stone, D-Santa Cruz, not too long ago voted with a majority of his colleagues in favor of Senate Invoice 9. The invoice basically would enable lot splits in areas zoned for single-family houses. On every separated lot, two duplexes or two connected houses could be allowed.
Individually on Aug. 23, Stone voted towards Senate Invoice 10. That invoice basically would enable metropolis and county leaders to approve as much as 10 housing models on tons near public transit. Stone sided with the minority in a 44-12 vote within the state Meeting. Each payments now go to the state Senate for approval then to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk to signal the payments into legislation.
Stone represents the twenty ninth State Meeting district. It consists of a lot of Santa Cruz County and components of Monterey and Santa Clara counties. Stone was first elected in 2012 and was re-elected for the fourth time in 2020.
SB9 and SB10 have been controversial. Opponents see them as a menace to single-family neighborhoods. Proponents see them as a part of a remedy for a statewide housing scarcity.
“We’ve been listening to from constituents in favor of each and against each,” Stone stated in an interview Friday. “Usually they have been talked about collectively regardless that they’re very totally different insurance policies with totally different implications.”
Senate Invoice 9
Senate Invoice 9 would enable lot splits to create two duplexes, two connected houses or a mix on a single-family lot. A current modification to the invoice requires homeowners to stay on the property for no less than three years earlier than splitting the property to construct extra models. A landowner must apply for county or metropolis permits to construct, and the authority must provide you with a well being or security motive to disclaim the allow.
The state Meeting authorised the invoice 45-19 on Aug. 26. It’s anticipated to return to the state Senate for a vote. If authorised, the governor can signal it in to legislation. Stone stated he voted in favor of the invoice partly as a result of he believed it could produce extra housing within the coming years.
“Facilitating a rise in housing is an effective factor,” Stone stated. “We’re not going to see duplexes displaying up within the subsequent month. It might be a protracted course of of individuals deciding what to do with their properties,” Stone stated. “I don’t assume it’s going to generate as a lot housing as housing proponents assume, and I don’t assume it’s going to be that detrimental to the neighborhood and among the opponents assume,” Stone stated.
A current UC Berkeley examine instructed about 700,000 new housing models may be constructed statewide if SB9 turns into legislation, in contrast with 7.5 million single-family houses in California. Roughly 8,000 new housing models might be inbuilt Santa Cruz County if SB9 turns into legislation, the examine stated.
Stone stated the invoice’s influence might be much like a 2019 state legislation, AB68, which allowed extra in-law models. It allowed two in-law models, or accent dwelling models, on single-family tons. It basically outmoded metropolis and county guidelines that usually stymie new in-law models, however it leaves new building as much as householders.
Mark Stone speaks throughout an internet assembly in April. (Zoom screenshot)
Senate Invoice 10
Stone described SB10 as “a distinct animal.” SB10 would enable cities and counties to undertake legal guidelines to legalize as much as 10 housing models inside one-half mile of a significant transit cease or on a “prime quality bus hall.” Such a bus hall would have cease frequencies of not more than quarter-hour throughout peak commute instances and different elements.
Stone voted “no” on SB10 as a result of he stated he feared that future Santa Cruz County supervisors might enable 10 models in areas exterior the county’s city providers boundary.
“To me, that’s an issue,” Stone stated. The road delineates metropolis sewer and fuel traces and basically was meant to restrict development in rural areas. It was drawn after Santa Cruz County voters authorised Measure J in 1978.
Stone famous that metropolis leaders inside the city providers boundary already can approve 10 housing models close to transit with environmental assessment. SB10 additionally would take away the environmental assessment.
“What we’re attempting to do and encourage is (to) do growth the place there’s transit. Do growth the place there are providers. Take a look at infill and density questions the place there are minimal impacts,” Stone stated.
Turn into a member of Santa Cruz Native, an impartial, community-supported newsroom that’s owned and led by native journalists. Our tales are free and all the time will likely be, however we depend on your help.
Already a member? Assist Santa Cruz Native with a one-time reward.