Panel rejects appeal to the Riverfront project
Santa Cruz project bolstered by Coastal Commission decision
Santa Cruz project gets a boost from unanimous decision by the California Coastal Commission.
SANTA MRUZ » The California Coastal Commission unanimously voted to reject the appeal of the Riverfront Project on Friday.
After the vote, Coastal Commission Chair Stephen Padilla announced that the commission found “no substantial issue” with the project facing appeal.
The appeal was originally filed by Ron Pomerantz, a Santa Cruz local and former San Jose fire captain, on Feb. 2. Pomerantz claimed the project, a mixed-use seven-story apartment building, violated the city’s Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act.
Santa Cruz’s Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act both aim to improve equity along the coastline. The goal is to do so by prioritizing coastal-dependent development over other types of development. It also works to provide access to the coast to people of all incomes, create more affordable housing along the coast and minimize the impacts of development on coastal resources.
Pomerantz’s main point surrounded the alleged use of the state’s density bonus law to sidestep the Local Coastal Program, and that the project had less than the required affordable units. However, Coastal Commission Staff did not find evidence to support that claim.
“The city did not misapply the state density bonus law here,” Coastal Program Analyst Colin Bowser said. “While it is an important question to whether there should be more than 20 affordable units and really probably a question for the state legislature to take up in a review of state density bonus law outcomes. We don’t think the city’s application of the state density bonus law was inconsistent with such laws.”
The state density bonus law allows for an increase of up to 35% of the base number of units in a development if the project meets certain requirements. At least 11% of the base units must be dedicated to very-low-income housing, 20% dedicated to low-income housing, or 40% dedicated to moderate-income housing.
The city also has a density bonus ordinance that is concurrent with the state’s law. The Riverfront project is in compliance with both density bonus laws. The project boasts 175 units, 155 of which are market-rate and the other 20 are affordable housing. That makes the project 11% affordable housing and eligible for the maximum density bonus of 35%, of which the project only requested 31.58%.
Pomerantz also stated the height of the building, which is seven stories and 80 feet, is taller than what is allowed by the Local Coastal Program. The LCP only allows the height of building to be 70 feet. Pomerantz claimed the additional height would detract from views of the coast and affect coastal resources.
However, the commission found that the LCP allows for projects of this size to exist due to exceptions built into the program. They also found the 10-foot height difference would not do much to ruin the view of the coast or affect the use of resources. Lee Butler, director of planning and community development for the city, had his own comment on the matter.
“The additional approximately eight feet of height is barely discernable from a distance,” he said. “Even if it is, this is our downtown where tall buildings are existing and expected.”
Butler also argued that the project will advance the city’s downtown plan. It will create affordable housing and is placed in an area with a high concentration of jobs, entertainment, retail and transportation.
“This is the most sustain
able place to develop in the entire region,” Butler said. “This is smart growth.”
Several members of the public tried to speak on the matter but found themselves unable. They did not give public testimonies during the city’s review of the project permit, therefore the commission could not hear their testimonies during the appeal.
Only one public commenter was qualified to comment during the appeal. Kyle Kelley, another Santa Cruz local, urged the commission to reject the appeal, as the city is in need of more housing.
“We especially need it in transit-oriented communities, so we can try to adapt to climate change and find ways to have better land use than detached housing,” he said. “I cannot afford detached land to live on, but I still want to live and work here. There are plenty of other people that work here that would like to live here and we need to find a way to make room for them.”
Commissioners ultimately found they could not appeal the project, as the city did its due diligence. There was also an issue of only roughly half of the project being within the jurisdiction of the commission.
“My perspective is that the city, over a long period of time, seemed to do a very thorough analysis of this,” Commissioner Caryl Hart said. “I think the driving concern is the absolute need for housing. They complied with the affordable housing requirements. I also think we have very limited jurisdiction here to consider this.”