Planning commission recommends expanded local‑preference policy to City Council to prioritize live‑and‑work applicants
Loading...
Summary
Staff proposed amendments to Municipal Code §24.16.045 to broaden local preference eligibility—including live/work and antidisplacement categories—and to require data tracking; the commission voted to recommend the change to City Council after questions about verification, enforcement and lotteries for 100% affordable projects.
City housing staff presented a proposed update to the City of Santa Cruz’s local preference policy and the Planning Commission voted to recommend the revisions to City Council.
Jessica Dewitt, housing manager, told the commission the proposal would add a new Part 5 to Chapter 24.16 (Municipal Code §24.16.045), expand eligibility to include antidisplacement categories, apply preferences to a broader set of units (including 100% affordable projects and units receiving city financial assistance), and establish a formal data‑tracking system and implementation guidelines. Dewitt said the proposal reflects City Council direction from a resolution passed Oct. 28, 2025, and staff incorporated community feedback that arrived after the planning packet was published.
“We're now pairing the live and work together for the city in the same equal order,” Dewitt said, describing the revised priority structure and noting applicants may provide documentation for live or work status or both.
Commissioners pressed staff on precedent and enforcement. One commissioner asked whether other communities in the region have similar live/work preferences and how effective they have been; Dewitt said other California jurisdictions use similar preferences, and staff’s soft‑launch tracking of four recent 100% affordable projects found that over 90% of lease‑ups qualified under the existing local preference policy.
Commissioners also asked how the program would verify eligibility and track displacement risk. Dewitt said the ordinance includes flexible options for verified and alternative evidence to accommodate privacy and safety concerns (for example, victims of domestic violence) and that verification occurs at initial lease‑up; she added that the property manager/owner/operator is typically responsible for collecting documentation and that staff intends to track preference outcomes with a basic city system while discussing potential regional coordination.
Public commenters urged stronger protections and tracking for tenants. Paul Yale, a local resident facing displacement, suggested requiring incoming owners or housing authorities to retain copies of tenant agreements and to submit those records when notices of eviction are served. Jillian Greenside urged clarity on how local preferences interact with lottery procedures owners may use to comply with fair‑housing requirements.
Dewitt responded that the city’s ordinance does not mandate a lottery but that owner/operators often use lotteries to meet fair‑housing obligations and that implementation methods are left to owner/operators so long as they comply with fair‑housing law. Staff said they regularly coordinate with the County Housing Authority and will continue looking for ways to improve tracking and enforcement within available resources.
Commissioner (speaker 8) moved to recommend that City Council approve the revised municipal code and local preference policy; the motion passed on roll call with commissioners voting aye. Staff indicated the recommendation will go to City Council on May 12 for consideration.
The commission discussion emphasized verification strategies, administrative burden, and ongoing data tracking rather than immediate policy changes beyond the draft ordinance language.
