News coverage last week focused on the compromises made by the Santa Cruz City Council regarding building heights in the housing planned for the downtown area.

The reality for Santa Cruz and all of Santa Cruz County is that building more housing, as required by the state, will mean more density and bigger (higher) building in an area with limited space for development and in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.

That reality was behind the packed turnout last week for a City Council meeting. A plan to provide more housing in the south of downtown area that will result in taller and denser mixed-use developments and a new arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors was approved, with the condition that building heights will be under eight stories, rather than 12 as proposed.

The city’s expanded Downtown Plan, which includes the South of Laurel Area (SOLA, between Laurel Street and Depot Park) potentially could result in 1,600 to 1,800 new housing units. Much of this housing likely will be in high-rise apartment buildings.

The push back, though, from residents whose neighborhoods will be affected is real, with concerns over traffic, building heights and infrastructure paramount.

So the height compromise is reasonable — and might, might, placate some of the opposition that centers on the changing face of Santa Cruz. But it remains to be seen if the city’s new height restrictions will hold up as state laws and regulations permit developers to ignore local height restrictions if they put together projects with enough affordable housing.

Compromises aside, the rush to development, as required by the state, isn’t still on.

Progress, if that’s the right word, is uneven among the four cities and the unincorporated areas of the county as a series of state laws have taken away many of the powers wielded by local governments to either stop or drastically modify housing projects. If these same local governments don’t meet their state Housing Element targets, they’ll lose even more regulatory power over developments.

Locally, the county faces a requirement to permit 4,634 new homes in unincorporated areas by 2031. The city of Santa Cruz will need to permit 3,736 more units; Watsonville, 2,053 units; Capitola, 1,336; and Scotts Valley, 1,220. That’s about 13,000 new housing units over the next six or so years. In other words, a lot of housing.

The city of Santa Cruz is well on its way to meeting state requirements. But as Santa Cruz continues to stay on track to reach housing targets, the other three cities and the county have a long road ahead to meet their numbers.

In the county, planning continues for below-market-rate apartment buildings for projects at 41st Avenue and Soquel Drive and at Soquel Drive and Thurber Lane. Hundreds more buildings with mostly market-rate homes are also in the pipeline. But rezoning areas for more development will be needed in Live Oak and Aptos if the county is to meet its goals.

And you thought traffic along Soquel Drive was bad now …

The cities of Capitola and Scotts Valley have lagged so far in meeting targets. Scotts Valley so far has met less than 1% of its 2032 goal, although more development is in the pipeline.

Capitola, limited by area, has met less than 5% of its goal so far. The city has looked toward redeveloping Capitola Mall to potentially provide hundreds of new housing units.

In Watsonville, development of nearly 200 housing units on Airport Boulevard and Main Street is in the works, but city officials are worried that higher construction costs and federal trade policies are making it difficult for developers to put together projects that make economic sense.

And consider that more obstacles will appear if federal support for affordable housing disappears or is drastically reduced, as local officials fear.

Another housing question also remains unanswered, however, and that regards vacancy rates. We’ll take that up in a subsequent Editorial about the seeming contradiction of high vacancy rates in housing units aimed at renters who are far above the guidelines for “affordable” housing.