Tell city of SC that the downtown plan EIR flawed

With the Downtown Plan Expansion moving through the CEQA environmental impact report process, it is apparent that nobody thinks developers will leave money on the table in the form of unused density bonus entitlements.

However, the basis of the environmental impact report’s impact analysis assumes developers will utilize only 50% of the density bonus offered to them by the state. State Density Bonus means developers are entitled to build 100% more units than they initially propose on a given plot of land. So buildings will be at least twice as tall.

The environmental report is flawed, and should be redone to analyze the true impact of the 100% density bonus, which if the City Council rezones the SOLA neighborhood to allow 12-story buildings, could result in 24-30-story buildings.

Tell the council not to rezone SOLA, leave the General Plan alone and that the environmental impact report is flawed and needs to be reanalyzed assuming use of 100% density bonus by developers — and that water usage impacts must use real drought data as the basis of this analysis, like that of the 2013-2018 drought.

— Susan Monheit, retired state water regulator, Santa Cruz

Housing: Santa Cruz can’t stay ‘exclusive’

Stephen Kessler (Feb. 15) thinks backward from a future where he sees empty buildings and imagines that all of this unnecessary construction could have been prevented by city government. Then oddly he jumps to: The future cannot be predicted because of fire, flood, pandemic — you name it.

Maybe we will not need more housing given these disasters? Housing has been mandated by the state. “It’s a done deal” and builders expect to make a profit from tenant occupation; otherwise why would they have gone in on the deal? The state population has greatly increased in size over time, hence a huge lack of housing.

We are part of the county and part of the state; and we are following the law’s intention, to help solve the housing crisis. I’ve said it before: This is not our little sand box town to create what we wish. For those who continue to believe we are wrecking the environment and depleting our water, the whole state has environmental and water problems.

Wanting to keep Santa Cruz “precious” is exclusive — not that we have this choice. Santa Cruz is doing its part in providing housing for the state of California.

— Mary Lynn Simons, Santa Cruz

PG&E keeping cost of rooftop solar panels high

In these uncertain times, our government has been pushing “all electric” (through PG&E on the grid) while we have more frequent grid outages. This is nonsensical. The best thing of course, is to be independent so that when the grid goes down you still have power from your roof (with batteries).

And, the best way to create more rooftop solar is to lower the cost of the panels by having the federal government buy a million solar panel kits (with inverters and associated hardware) from American companies. The volume of the order would dramatically reduce the cost to consumers and the federal government would be fully reimbursed by the consumer. These solar kits would be sent to local hardware stores to be purchased at cost plus a handling fee for the hardware stores. Local installers would be busy and energy use from the grid would drop. No bureaucracy involved at all.

Why is this not happening? Because of government lobbying by PG&E.

— Don Eggleston, Aptos

Stray artificial light hazardous to monarchs

Your Feb. 16 article about the declining numbers of monarch butterflies was sobering. I take it to heart that “everyone has a role to play in monarch conservation.” Although they migrate during the day, studies show that stray artificial light at night is hazardous to monarchs when present where they roost. Additionally, light pollution harms birds, mammals, insects and fish, including the endangered species we’d like to see back in the San Lorenzo River. The city of Santa Cruz identified in its 2030 General Plan the goal of reducing the effect of light pollution on both urban and open space lands. As published by DarkSky International, the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting show simple ways we can cut down on wasted light around our home. And with 2030 now less than five years away, your voice can encourage businesses and our elected officials to adopt the same guidelines, creating a safer, healthier community for all species. Local issues can also be reported to santacruzdarksky.org.

— Andy Kreyche, Santa Cruz