Quick Take:
The Santa Cruz City Council’s responses to the civil grand jury’s affordable housing report show that it largely disagrees with the government watchdog body’s assessment of the city’s handling of its affordable housing stock, but added that the majority of its recommendations have already been implemented.
The City of Santa Cruz is defending how closely it tracks whether scarce affordable housing units are going to the people it says are supposed to be prioritized.
The Santa Cruz County civil grand jury released the Santa Cruz City Council’s responses to its evaluation of the city’s handling of affordable housing preferences on Thursday morning. The council’s response showed little agreement with the civil grand jury’s findings but willingness to embrace most of the report’s recommendations.
The civil grand jury, a state-mandated, volunteer-led government watchdog group of 19 members, comes together each year to analyze local government operations in the county. Recently, that’s included major investigations into county jail conditions, sexual assault and domestic violence response and road conditions.
An affordable housing report the watchdog body published in June criticized the City of Santa Cruz for not maintaining adequate data on whether local people and city workers are getting preference for affordable housing units as called for in the city’s local preference ordinance. It also criticized the city for not tracking how many affordable units are occupied by UC Santa Cruz students, and found that the city has contradictory policies on whether inclusionary housing applies to just “low, very low and extremely low income earners,” or if moderate income earners are also eligible.
Similar to the county board of supervisors’ response to a recent report on roads, the Santa Cruz City Council largely disagreed with the civil grand jury’s findings. Of three findings, the council partially disagreed with one and outright disagreed with the other two.
First, the council outright disagreed with the civil grand jury’s claim that the city’s policies are inconsistent on whether affordable units are restricted to “low, very low and extremely low income earners,” or if moderate income earners are also eligible. Determining income eligibility relies on the resolution approved when an affordable housing developer and the city reached an agreement, the council’s response said. That does not typically change over time, which means that a project approved years ago would have different requirements than one approved in 2024.
The council’s response references 1979’s Measure O, which requires developers of residential projects to provide a certain number of affordable units to income-eligible households. It said that there are eight resolutions on the city’s Measure O webpage that establish the calculation of income eligibility for inclusionary housing within the city.
The Santa Cruz City Council also fully disagreed with the civil grand jury’s claim that there is no data on whether inclusionary housing is occupied by “income-verified local residents and local workers,” despite the fact that both groups are supposed to be given preference. The civil grand jury argued that this prevents both the city and community at large from knowing that inclusionary housing is meeting the need and intended purpose.
responses to road report
The council said that, while inclusionary housing is “generally” intended to serve low-income households, local preferences are not established or required by Measure O. Instead, they were adopted in 2006, and some projects are not subject to those preferences. It added that the city annually verifies income eligibility of inclusionary housing occupants, that the Santa Cruz Housing Authority reviews applications and confirms income eligibility for Measure O units, and the city then reviews those findings. In fully affordable projects, the city typically lets the property manager review and verify applications before sending them to the city for review and certification.
The council also said that city staff has recently begun requiring developers or property managers to verify that they have complied with the city’s local preference policies.
Lastly, the council partially disagreed with the civil grand jury’s criticism that the city does not track data on UCSC students renting units in inclusionary and fully affordable housing projects. The city does not know how many students are renting inclusionary units, the council said, but feels it should be the university’s job to track where its students live. It also said that the impact of students on the availability of affordable housing units is “likely fairly limited, as the income eligibility requirements would disqualify UCSC students who are claimed as dependents by their parents.”
The council also said that three of four recommendations in the civil grand jury’s report have already been implemented. The city has created an inclusionary housing public dashboard, developed a system to track and document if a unit is occupied by an income-verified local resident or worker within 30 days of occupancy, and has publicized the specific income levels covered by the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance and resolutions. It rejected the recommendation that the city document the percentage of inclusionary and 100% affordable units that are rented to UCSC students, because it believes about 90% of students are claimed as dependents, and therefore not eligible. The council reiterated that it believes the university should track where students live.