ARTICLE
As you have read in our eNews articles over the past few years, housing remains one of the top policy priorities for the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce. At last Tuesday’s council meeting, the Santa Cruz City Council approved a seven-story housing project that brings the downtown back to the San Lorenzo River. The Chamber supported this project and publicly commented that this project delivers on the promise made by business and community leaders over one hundred years ago — to turn our buildings toward the natural beauty of the San Lorenzo River. In 1926, George P. Becknell was the President of the Chamber whose ideas to grow Santa Cruz tourism prompted lively conversation throughout the town. In January 1926, two hundred people attended a forum to heartily endorse extending the Boardwalk from the West side of the San Lorenzo River from Kay to Water Streets. Becknell told the crowd, “The San Lorenzo as it courses through the City could and should be made the most beautiful attraction in the city. Building a River Boardwalk will do more towards making the City a year-round resort than any other one improvement…” Funds for this endeavor would come from local banks issuing notes with interest and local businesses buying the notes. Concern was raised that the project should be paid for by a city tax because the entire city would benefit. Mr. Cardiff, a city leader, suggested that various organizations could sponsor sections of the project with recognition through plaques. City leaders of the day, Mrs. Fred McPherson and Mrs. Alice Dixon spoke in favor of this idea, but Mrs. Hazael Marsh Piper was hesitant about the unsightly backs of buildings facing the river. Another community leader, Leslie Crenbourne, said that the “city will undoubtedly create proper zoning law.” The Seaside Company began work on their portion on July 15, 1926. The Downtown Plan was updated last year to include opportunities to open the downtown to buildings facing the river and take advantage of the natural beauty of the San Lorenzo River as “a river promenade” — an extension of the downtown toward the river and to the Boardwalk. Amazingly, almost a century later, with the City Council approval of the Riverfront Project we are getting closer to the vision of our 1920s city leaders. The 5-2 vote included support from our two newest council members, Vice Mayor Sonja Brunner and Council member Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson who joined Mayor Donna Meyers and Council members Renee Golder and Martine Watkins. Unfortunately, Council members Justin Cummings and Sandy Brown voted “no” as they pushed to increase more affordable housing units into the project that would go above and beyond what is required by state law. Yes, many agree that the City of Santa Cruz, like other cities in California, lags behind meeting its low- and very low-income housing state housing requirements. However, asking a local developer to increase affordable units on a project is a complex financial plan that could result in no project at all. The Riverfront Project includes: > Three buildings on the east side of Front Street between Cathcart Street and Soquel Avenue. The buildings would have 175 condominiums above commercial space that opens to Front Street and the San Lorenzo Riverwalk. Two pedestrian promenades would connect Front Street and the Riverwalk. > Twenty units would be affordable and required to be offered to individuals and families with low- and very low-incomes based on the area median-income. Owen Lawlor, a local Santa Cruz resident and developer, applied for a density bonus under state law, which allows the project to build more stories and units than current zoning allows. In return for using the state bonus density law, the developer must offer fifteen of the twenty required affordable units to people with very low-incomes. Late last year when the project came before the City Council for consideration, just minutes into the public hearing, the city staff and the project proponents received a lengthy letter from the California Coastal Commission objecting to the project and stating vaguely that the project was not compliant with the city’s Local Coastal Permit. This struck both the city staff and the developer as a last-minute push to stop the project completely. It delayed action on the project until last Tuesday. What’s behind the Coastal Commission’s rationale? So Owen Lawlor and his development team, along with the City staff, met with the Coastal Commission to address their concerns. In an effort to find consensus with the Coastal Commission staff and avoid additional delays, Lawlor offered the following concessions, to which the City Council agreed Tuesday: > A $50,000 contribution to the City for San Lorenzo River management, maintenance and enhancement; > A $400,000 contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to help subsidize affordable housing development; and > If city staff can find funding for part of a Front Street traffic signal improvement project next to the project, Lawlor offered a 50% matching gift, up to $100,000, to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. In the development world, these extractions for “public benefit” are commonly used as negotiating tools of local government. In this case, since the project requires Coastal Commission approval as well, it is unclear whether these concessions are enough to avoid an appeal by the Coastal Commission staff or members of the public. Click here to read the Coastal Commission’s letter: Coastal Commission Letter In Santa Cruz County — even during a pandemic, a firestorm that displaced 900-plus families out of their homes and looking for alternative housing options amidst a wobbling economy — it would seem reasonable that these concessions would seal the deal, especially along California's Central Coast where housing is in high demand. Reading from the Commission’s letter they state: “In addition, we very much recognize the need for affordable housing in Santa Cruz, and strongly support affordable housing in the coastal zone and in Santa Cruz’s downtown. In fact, the Coastal Act directs that development, including affordable housing units, be provided in places where there are adequate facilities to serve such development, especially where such units can contribute to walkable, vibrant, and sustainable communities. The Coastal Act and LCP clearly encourage the provision of affordable housing, which we also know to be a City goal, and believe that the degree of affordable units provided is also an appropriate LCP metric to consider for any exceptions.” The question that remains is whether the Coastal Commission stands by its word.
As you have read in our eNews articles over the past few years, housing remains one of the top policy priorities for the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce. At last Tuesday’s council meeting, the Santa Cruz City Council approved a seven-story housing project that brings the downtown back to the San Lorenzo River. The Chamber supported this project and publicly commented that this project delivers on the promise made by business and community leaders over one hundred years ago — to turn our buildings toward the natural beauty of the San Lorenzo River.
In 1926, George P. Becknell was the President of the Chamber whose ideas to grow Santa Cruz tourism prompted lively conversation throughout the town. In January 1926, two hundred people attended a forum to heartily endorse extending the Boardwalk from the West side of the San Lorenzo River from Kay to Water Streets. Becknell told the crowd, “The San Lorenzo as it courses through the City could and should be made the most beautiful attraction in the city. Building a River Boardwalk will do more towards making the City a year-round resort than any other one improvement…”
Funds for this endeavor would come from local banks issuing notes with interest and local businesses buying the notes. Concern was raised that the project should be paid for by a city tax because the entire city would benefit. Mr. Cardiff, a city leader, suggested that various organizations could sponsor sections of the project with recognition through plaques. City leaders of the day, Mrs. Fred McPherson and Mrs. Alice Dixon spoke in favor of this idea, but Mrs. Hazael Marsh Piper was hesitant about the unsightly backs of buildings facing the river. Another community leader, Leslie Crenbourne, said that the “city will undoubtedly create proper zoning law.” The Seaside Company began work on their portion on July 15, 1926.
The Downtown Plan was updated last year to include opportunities to open the downtown to buildings facing the river and take advantage of the natural beauty of the San Lorenzo River as “a river promenade” — an extension of the downtown toward the river and to the Boardwalk.
Amazingly, almost a century later, with the City Council approval of the Riverfront Project we are getting closer to the vision of our 1920s city leaders.
The 5-2 vote included support from our two newest council members, Vice Mayor Sonja Brunner and Council member Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson who joined Mayor Donna Meyers and Council members Renee Golder and Martine Watkins. Unfortunately, Council members Justin Cummings and Sandy Brown voted “no” as they pushed to increase more affordable housing units into the project that would go above and beyond what is required by state law. Yes, many agree that the City of Santa Cruz, like other cities in California, lags behind meeting its low- and very low-income housing state housing requirements. However, asking a local developer to increase affordable units on a project is a complex financial plan that could result in no project at all.
The Riverfront Project includes: > Three buildings on the east side of Front Street between Cathcart Street and Soquel Avenue. The buildings would have 175 condominiums above commercial space that opens to Front Street and the San Lorenzo Riverwalk. Two pedestrian promenades would connect Front Street and the Riverwalk. > Twenty units would be affordable and required to be offered to individuals and families with low- and very low-incomes based on the area median-income.
Owen Lawlor, a local Santa Cruz resident and developer, applied for a density bonus under state law, which allows the project to build more stories and units than current zoning allows. In return for using the state bonus density law, the developer must offer fifteen of the twenty required affordable units to people with very low-incomes.
Late last year when the project came before the City Council for consideration, just minutes into the public hearing, the city staff and the project proponents received a lengthy letter from the California Coastal Commission objecting to the project and stating vaguely that the project was not compliant with the city’s Local Coastal Permit. This struck both the city staff and the developer as a last-minute push to stop the project completely. It delayed action on the project until last Tuesday. What’s behind the Coastal Commission’s rationale?
So Owen Lawlor and his development team, along with the City staff, met with the Coastal Commission to address their concerns. In an effort to find consensus with the Coastal Commission staff and avoid additional delays, Lawlor offered the following concessions, to which the City Council agreed Tuesday: > A $50,000 contribution to the City for San Lorenzo River management, maintenance and enhancement; > A $400,000 contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to help subsidize affordable housing development; and > If city staff can find funding for part of a Front Street traffic signal improvement project next to the project, Lawlor offered a 50% matching gift, up to $100,000, to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
In the development world, these extractions for “public benefit” are commonly used as negotiating tools of local government. In this case, since the project requires Coastal Commission approval as well, it is unclear whether these concessions are enough to avoid an appeal by the Coastal Commission staff or members of the public. Click here to read the Coastal Commission’s letter: Coastal Commission Letter
In Santa Cruz County — even during a pandemic, a firestorm that displaced 900-plus families out of their homes and looking for alternative housing options amidst a wobbling economy — it would seem reasonable that these concessions would seal the deal, especially along California's Central Coast where housing is in high demand. Reading from the Commission’s letter they state: “In addition, we very much recognize the need for affordable housing in Santa Cruz, and strongly support affordable housing in the coastal zone and in Santa Cruz’s downtown. In fact, the Coastal Act directs that development, including affordable housing units, be provided in places where there are adequate facilities to serve such development, especially where such units can contribute to walkable, vibrant, and sustainable communities. The Coastal Act and LCP clearly encourage the provision of affordable housing, which we also know to be a City goal, and believe that the degree of affordable units provided is also an appropriate LCP metric to consider for any exceptions.”
The question that remains is whether the Coastal Commission stands by its word.