Santa Cruz approves new beach-area condo, commercial project (Sentinel)

Posted on October 25, 2019

Original article: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2019/10/23/santa-cruz-approves-new-beach-area-condo-commercial-project

OCTOBER 23, 2019, SANTA CRUZ, CA >>> A major beach-area condominium and commercial development earned the city’s blessing in a contentious split vote spilling into the early hours of Wednesday morning. Westside neighbors and environmental activists faced off over housing, union and developers’ advocates related to the planned construction of a four-story project on a surface parking lot operated by the adjacent Dream Inn. Both properties are owned by Ensemble Real Estate and Investments. Nearly 50 speakers voiced their evenly divided opinions for an hour and a half before council members spent nearly the next two hours debating the decision.

“I think we have to remember that Santa Cruz is not only one of the least affordable places in the nation – it’s internationally,” said Mayor Martine Watkins, who voted to approve the project. “And we need to, as a council, figure out a way to balance process and to be in action. For me, I feel that it’s imperative that we take action.”

The 47-foot tall mixed-use structure, to be located at the corner of West Cliff Drive and Bay Avenue, will include twofloors of underground parking, an outdoor public plaza and Dream Inn and public amenities such as a spa, fitness gym, café, retail market and hotel administrative offices. Because the applicant is seeking a coastal permit, the City Council’s project approval is subject to potential appeal before the California Coastal Commission.

Environment, safety concerns
Project opponents, many who live near the project side or affected by potential traffic backups along West Cliff Drive, demanded a more thorough environmental review of the project, raising concerns related to issues such as cliff seismic stability, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency response access and tree removal. Council members Sandy Brown, Drew Glover and Chris Krohn supported community requests to delay the project for the full environmental study, but did not earn enough support from their peers to pass the motion. Residents of the 68-unit Clearview Court Mobile Home Park, arguably the most directly impacted by the large development, protested over intensified construction and site operational sounds and vibrations, loss of sunlight, view and personal privacy and decreased property values.

Speakers opposed to the evening’s agenda item offered a range of reactions to the project, some saying the development could be a good one if all the studies were done, or should eliminate the ground-floor commercial so as to limit its public draw. Others said they did not want to see the site, currently serving as a private Dream Inn surface parking lot, developed at all.

Resident Scott Graham warned of “pirate developers” who “dangle affordable housing” and urged the council to approve a more palatable project that excluded commercial uses, while another speaker accused the city of backing a plan that “caters to the ultra-wealthy.”

“I’m in favor of affordable housing, but it’s not worth having affordable housing to pass a bad project,” Graham told the council.

Housing, job creation
Proponents cited a need for additional housing — including 10 out of 89 units to be sold at so-called affordable rates — and job creation. Supporters of the project included representatives from the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, NAACP, Affordable Housing Now, Santa Cruz YIMBY. Some said that while 10 affordable housing units may not sound like much, they would represent a significant addition to the city’s small stock of such for-sale units.

Renter Kenneth Brown Sr. said that even after a full career, including retirement after 32 years at Santa Cruz Metro and 10 years at Salz Tannery, he still could not afford to buy his own home. He said he stood in support of the project.

“I’m the working poor, just like a whole bunch other of these folks here and I hear people saying, ‘oh, the rich people will get these houses,’” Brown said. “Maybe I need to get one of them, if the lord says, and maybe I’ll be able to afford one of them.”

Eastside resident Shelley Hatch said she had observed several city policies clashing in the proposed development.

“The goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will never be achieved if our city, Planning Department and staff continue to defend a project like that this one, that promises, at least, 1,552 car trips that will definitely be idling in bumper-to-bumper traffic for blocks or for miles,” Hatch said.

Evan Siroky, founder of the local Yes In My Back Yard group, said the council was required by law to approve general plan-compliant projects unless it makes specific findings negating an approval.

“Let’s get real. Every time a project like this gets proposed, four stories or higher, people say we need a full EIR, even though the city has already done an EIR, there’s been all these studies that have already happened,” Siroky said. “Every time people complain about the traffic, so much that it seems like providing housing isn’t really a priority.”