Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Local Preference topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Cruz council advances local‑preference housing ordinance amid demands for clearer enforcement
Summary
Council approved the first reading of an ordinance expanding local resident and worker preference for some affordable units, but public commenters and several council members said the draft lacks the verification, auditing and enforcement details promised to voters in the Measure C campaign.
The Santa Cruz City Council on May 12 approved the first reading of an ordinance that would expand the city’s local‑preference policy for affordable housing, directing staff to return with implementation details. The vote moved the ordinance forward while deferring a separate implementing resolution so staff can hammer out enforcement, tracking and fee mechanisms.
Jessica DeWitt, the city’s housing manager, told the council the proposal would expand who qualifies for local preference (equally prioritizing living and working in the city), apply the preference to more categories of units (including 100% affordable projects, density‑bonus units and units receiving city assistance) and add new municipal‑code language (a proposed Part 5 to Chapter 24.16, subsection .045). DeWitt said staff has been collecting voluntary statistics from property owners but that the formal tracking system and automated IT tools remain 'in the weeds' and will require coordination with the county and housing authority.
Public commenters and several council members pushed back, saying the draft resolution did not match the level of verification and enforcement voters were promised when the council adopted the October 28 resolution and advocated for Measure C. "This is not the plan that was promised," said Adrian Pearson, who urged staff to return a detailed monitoring, auditing and enforcement program rather than voluntary reporting. Jillian Greenside, who said she voted for Measure C, testified that the implementation language leaves large loopholes and asked for annual city audits and legal remedies for noncompliance.
At the dais, Council member Golder and others raised practical concerns: project‑based vouchers and certain funding sources can legally prevent the application of a local preference at specific units, and school‑district enrollment data can be misleading when households move. DeWitt explained those limits to council and noted staff will use GIS mapping and continuing outreach to clarify which projects and units are covered; she said enforcement will emphasize education and check‑ins at entitlement, building‑permit and lease‑up stages and that enforcement responses would be handled on a case‑by‑case basis.
The council approved the ordinance’s first reading and directed staff to return with a detailed implementing resolution and operational plan that addresses data systems, monitoring, fees and enforcement. Council members stressed the need to balance the city’s goal of prioritizing residents and local workers with legal constraints and the rights of applicants and tenants.
Next steps: staff will continue technical work with IT, the county and the housing authority on a tracking system and return with the implementing resolution and recommended enforcement mechanisms for council consideration.
