Quick Take
In Lookout’s second candidate forum of the 2024 election season, candidates vying to represent District 1 on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and both Measure M advocates and opponents took to the stage to discuss and debate everything from transit and budgets to housing and inclusionary rates. The primary election is set for March 5.
On Monday evening, Lookout hosted our second forum of the 2024 election season. The session, held at Hotel Paradox, Lookout’s event partner, included candidates for the District 1 Santa Cruz County supervisor seat and both opponents and supporters of Measure M, the City of Santa Cruz’s height limitation and affordability measure. Lookout Community Voices Editor Jody K. Biehl and Christopher Neely, Lookout’s policy and politics correspondent, moderated the conversational debates.
District 1 holds Live Oak, Pleasure Point, parts of Capitola and Soquel and the hills north to the Summit. The two candidates — incumbent Manu Koenig and challenger Lani Faulkner — discussed the county budget, housing and the Coastal Rail Trail project.
Measure M is an initiative that asks two questions. One is whether voters support changing Santa Cruz city law to restrict increases in allowed building heights for all city projects without voter approval, and the second whether they support requiring developments with 30 or more units to make at least 25% of those affordable housing units, up from 20% currently. Representatives from both sides — former Santa Cruz mayor and Measure M opponent Don Lane and retired county planner and Measure M supporter Frank Barron — debated the feasibility of raising the inclusionary rate in new developments, when Measure M would actually trigger a citywide election, and how the measure could be interpreted — or misinterpreted.
District 1 county supervisor candidates
Koenig, despite campaigning for just his second term on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, is set to be the most senior member on the board should he win reelection. One term is enough, Faulkner said right out of the gate.
“I’ve been asked to run by local schools, local school board members, union members and others that have shared that their voices have not been heard and their needs have not been met by the incumbent,” she said.
Koenig said he believes that he has been quite responsive, and in fact, has “set a gold standard” for public engagement and outreach on the board. He said that he holds town hall meetings throughout the district so each neighborhood has a chance to connect.
“If people haven’t been heard, I don’t know if they’re actually trying to get in touch with me,” he said, adding that District 1 has the most unincorporated residents of any county district, meaning that their supervisor is their most direct democratic representative. “So, I’m sure we occasionally miss some communication, but we try to correct that as quickly as possible.”
When it comes to what Faulkner would do differently, she said that she would push for more senior services, as older residents have approached her and told her that they feel “left behind,” have more of a presence at schools, and of course, make a harder push for rail and trail.
Koenig followed up by saying that he introduced a motion to commit the county to build 120 units in the unincorporated areas, and has worked closely with Metro to ramp up its service and introduce the Youth Cruz Free program — which he said Faulkner has spoken positively about. Faulkner added that she, too, had worked on the Metro changes, and connected Climate Justice with Metro to move the youth program forward.
Of course, Measure D had to enter the conversation. The 2022 measure divided the community over whether to replace the option of a rail-and-trail plan with a trail-only plan, and it seems though those sentiments have boiled over into the 2024 District 1 race – but why?
“Good question,” Koenig said. “I don’t know, but I think my opponent should be thanking me for Measure D because it did help bring a certain amount of clarity on how to move forward on this issue.”
Koenig said that, above all, he is concerned with the high-speed rail program stalling out statewide, and doubts Santa Cruz County could ever truly get its own program done.
Prior to his 2020 election, Koenig served as executive director of Greenway, the organization that worked to get Measure D on the June 2022 ballot. Faulkner, a rail proponent, helped lead the Measure D opposition campaign. Faulkner said Koenig voted against building the trail despite the county having money for it.
“The state gave us $115 million to build the trail and the incumbent voted against it, so I would really push to bring that trail in right away,” she said. “We’ve got the money for it to go all the way to Aptos.”
Koenig acknowledged that there was one vote where he thought there should be more time to view the project’s environmental impact report as the trail was set to take out a lot of trees, but has since moved forward with the report. He added that, although the county did get $115 million from the state, “We better look out for some cost overruns,” and said he believes that the trail will require at least another $30 million more than what has been funded. Faulkner said that the county could have had that money had so much not been spent on fighting Measure D.
“Those efforts have cost us a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of money that we really could have used,” she said. “We could have those things right now.”
Moderator Biehl asked each candidate how they would allocate the county’s $1.2 billion budget, a budget that is under stress and could require difficult choices. Faulkner said she would prioritize bringing in more funding from the state and other agencies, citing her work as a Democratic Party state delegate.
Koenig said that “asking extra nice” won’t get more money, especially in a budget deficit year. He pointed to the fact that the county gets only 13% of its property taxes, and said he’s working to build a statewide coalition to push for changes to property tax fund allocations.
When it comes to housing and high rents, the two also differed. Faulkner advocates for rent stabilization and more Section 8 vouchers to get people housed securely before they fall into homelessness.
“Once a person is homeless, it becomes a spiraling situation that costs them and us as taxpayers so much more,” she said, adding that once someone is homeless they can experience medical, mental health and substance abuse problems.
Koenig spoke of increasing safe parking capacity and creating temporary and transitional housing and mental health care facilities. He said he doesn’t think the county has a sufficient budget to pay people’s rent, but he does think the county should create a fund that provides emergency rental assistance when necessary.
Measure M
Don Lane and Frank Barron — the former representing Measure M opponents and the latter representing supporters — clashed repeatedly on what the initiative put on the city of Santa Cruz ballot by voters would and wouldn’t do.
Lane opened by saying that over the past 40 years, 22,000 people have been added to Santa Cruz’s population, yet only 6,500 new housing units have been built in that same time frame. Because the number of people coming in far outpaces the building of units, Lane said increasing the inclusionary rate — the percentage of affordable units that would be required in a development — will only slow down construction.
“Four years ago, the city adopted a new rule on inclusionary housing, and the rate went up to 20% from 15%,” he said. “Only one project with four units is either completed or under construction since the rate went up.”
Lane asserted that Measure M would require a vote on many things rather than just tall buildings, because the measure appears to apply to “development projects,” which can be considered anything from apartment buildings to homeless services buildings and even fences, according to city planning rules. Barron said the measure would require a vote only when developers want to go above the existing building height limits.
“It would have to be something that changes the zoning ordinance or makes an amendment to the general plan,” he said. “Accessory dwelling units don’t require a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan, and the same goes for apartment buildings. There are plenty of areas zoned for tall apartment buildings.”
Lane, referring to moderator Christopher Neely’s story on M published in Lookout on Monday morning, pointed out that even Gary Patton, a measure proponent, former county supervisor and land-use attorney, said the argument that a fence could trigger an election could apply.
“He knows that it was not written to do what Frank and others want it to do,” Lane said. “They wrote it more broadly, and they made a mistake.”
Barron rebutted: “It’s not realistic to say the city’s going to change the fence requirements. That’s something that’s been in effect for decades, if not centuries. Anyone can get an over-height fence permit – it’s just a conditional permit and you don’t need to change the zoning ordinance for it.”
When asked if there is a risk that it could be open to interpretation, Barron said no.
“It’s very clear and the city attorney agrees,” he said.
“Wait, the city attorney agrees there’s no risk?” Lane inquired.
“No, he agreed with my interpretation of it in the ballot language,” Barron replied.
“Once he heard these arguments, he said no, it’s really ambiguous, and could very well end up in court,” responded Lane again.
Such fundamental disagreement about the would-be impact of the intended ordinance characterized the whole session.
The two also disagreed about a report drafted by the real estate advisory firm Keyser Marston Associates, which determined that a 25% inclusionary rate would not work. Lane said he trusts the report, while Barron sided with City Councilmember Sandy Brown, who said the report was based on “developer assertions.”
Barron added that, should Measure M fail, he believes that the city has entered a slippery slope of development.
“The gates will be wide open, next it’ll be 15 stories and after that it’ll be 20 stories,” he said. “It’s gonna really change Santa Cruz, and I think what people are saying is let’s just step back and let the voters have a say.”
Lane said he believes this line of thinking is misguided.
“It’s all based on fear that something might happen, but democracy has many different ways that can work,” he said, adding that a vote should be necessary only if a specific development or situation is in question. “If people don’t like it we can fight it out at city council; if it doesn’t work there, we can put it on the ballot.”
And Lane said there could be a way to get more affordable units in some developments. If a developer purchases a lot right next to the one it is going to develop on, for example, it can donate the lot to a nonprofit housing developer that could build more affordable units than the inclusionary rate would typically allow. That sparked another debate.
Barron asked: “So that’s even over 25%, right?”
“It’s possible if you don’t do it as an inclusionary rate,” Lane replied.
“Inclusionary can be in lieu, you can give land or pay into a fund,” responded Barron. “So it sounds like 25% is perfectly possible.”
“If there’s some land next door,” said Lane. “The inclusionary ordinance for the city says it should be very rare and exceptional to build affordable housing off-site. It can’t just be done willy-nilly.”
“It sounds like it’s possible to do 25%,” said Barron.
“It sounds like in your dreams,” retorted Lane, a comment that summed up the contentious session.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.