ARTICLE
Early last month the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce reviewed and discussed the merits and challenges associated with Measure M — the Housing For People ballot measure in the City of Santa Cruz that will appear on the March 5, 2024 ballot. Measure M, as written, is a messy attempt to set new ground rules to the City’s Municipal Code and would prohibit the City Council from amending the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance in a way that increases allowable height limits or floor area ratios (FARs) for development projects in any zoning district without a prior vote of the people. The measure would also increase the City’s inclusionary housing requirements to at least 25% for developments with 30 or more units. The City staff report was written based on a Keyser Marston Associates analysis. KMA’s full analysis contains detailed explanations and evaluations leading to the staff recommendation. The City Council agreed. The Chamber has a very deliberate review process in which our Community Affairs Committee (CAC) considers a proposal, a project or in this case, a ballot measure. The CAC heard presentations from both the Yes on Measure M and the No on Measure M representatives, and made a recommendation to the Chamber Board of Directors to oppose it. The Board of Directors accepted the recommendation. Measure M would impede the City's progress toward its housing objectives by introducing barriers. It is expected to heighten risks and costs for developers, impose additional financial burdens on taxpayers for election expenses, and mandate an increase in the inclusionary housing percentage. Consequently, this elevation in inclusionary housing requirements may lead to a reduction in both affordable and market-rate housing construction within the City. There is no evidence that the increase from 20% to 25% inclusionary housing would actually generate more affordable units. Measure M primary focus is on specific changes to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance being proposed in City-led planning processes or by developers of homes. However, numerous State law changes would also trigger the need for a vote of the people under the measure. The State has allowed for increased height or FAR beyond the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance many times in the past couple of years. While the City must follow State law from the date the law goes into effect, fully complying with these laws and providing transparency with respect to applicable development allowances would still require a formal amendment (typically to the Zoning Ordinance), thus triggering a vote of the people under the measure. Each vote would cost taxpayers to fund the election, and the outcome of the vote would not affect what a developer could do, only whether City codes could be updated to reflect State mandates, because the City would have to comply with State law regardless, or face legal jeopardy. There are a litany of reasons why the ballot measure is wrong for Santa Cruz. The potential long-term negative fiscal impacts on the City stand out as a significant concern. Based on historical and recent trends, and considering state law compliance, it’s expected on average, the measure would require at least one election or vote of the people per year. This estimate doesn’t even factor in any extra proactive initiatives the City might undertake, like those outlined in the Housing Element, that could trigger more votes of the people. The current cost of an election is estimated to be in the range of $115,000 to $185,000 based on figures from the Santa Cruz County Elections Department. In view of these issues, the Chamber urges the voters of the City of Santa Cruz to vote NO on this ballot measure.
Early last month the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce reviewed and discussed the merits and challenges associated with Measure M — the Housing For People ballot measure in the City of Santa Cruz that will appear on the March 5, 2024 ballot. Measure M, as written, is a messy attempt to set new ground rules to the City’s Municipal Code and would prohibit the City Council from amending the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance in a way that increases allowable height limits or floor area ratios (FARs) for development projects in any zoning district without a prior vote of the people. The measure would also increase the City’s inclusionary housing requirements to at least 25% for developments with 30 or more units. The City staff report was written based on a Keyser Marston Associates analysis. KMA’s full analysis contains detailed explanations and evaluations leading to the staff recommendation. The City Council agreed.
The Chamber has a very deliberate review process in which our Community Affairs Committee (CAC) considers a proposal, a project or in this case, a ballot measure. The CAC heard presentations from both the Yes on Measure M and the No on Measure M representatives, and made a recommendation to the Chamber Board of Directors to oppose it. The Board of Directors accepted the recommendation.
Measure M would impede the City's progress toward its housing objectives by introducing barriers. It is expected to heighten risks and costs for developers, impose additional financial burdens on taxpayers for election expenses, and mandate an increase in the inclusionary housing percentage. Consequently, this elevation in inclusionary housing requirements may lead to a reduction in both affordable and market-rate housing construction within the City.
There is no evidence that the increase from 20% to 25% inclusionary housing would actually generate more affordable units.
Measure M primary focus is on specific changes to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance being proposed in City-led planning processes or by developers of homes. However, numerous State law changes would also trigger the need for a vote of the people under the measure. The State has allowed for increased height or FAR beyond the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance many times in the past couple of years. While the City must follow State law from the date the law goes into effect, fully complying with these laws and providing transparency with respect to applicable development allowances would still require a formal amendment (typically to the Zoning Ordinance), thus triggering a vote of the people under the measure. Each vote would cost taxpayers to fund the election, and the outcome of the vote would not affect what a developer could do, only whether City codes could be updated to reflect State mandates, because the City would have to comply with State law regardless, or face legal jeopardy.
There are a litany of reasons why the ballot measure is wrong for Santa Cruz. The potential long-term negative fiscal impacts on the City stand out as a significant concern. Based on historical and recent trends, and considering state law compliance, it’s expected on average, the measure would require at least one election or vote of the people per year. This estimate doesn’t even factor in any extra proactive initiatives the City might undertake, like those outlined in the Housing Element, that could trigger more votes of the people. The current cost of an election is estimated to be in the range of $115,000 to $185,000 based on figures from the Santa Cruz County Elections Department.
In view of these issues, the Chamber urges the voters of the City of Santa Cruz to vote NO on this ballot measure.