ABSTRACT: On Thursday, August 11, 2011, the California Coastal Commission conducted a public hearing at Watsonville City Hall City Council Chambers on the City of Santa Cruz’s request for a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) amendment to “apply a new zoning district and site standards for the historic La Bahia site to facilitate redevelopment of the site as a condo-hotel with restaurant and conference facilities.” The Staff recommended approval of the LCP amendment, if modified. An LCP amendment passes only upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the twelve appointed Commissioners. Commissioner Sanchez moved that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Major Amendment STC-1-11 as submitted by the City of Santa Cruz and recommend a no vote, seconded by ZIMMER and passed unanimously (DENIED). Commissioner Sanchez moved that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Major Amendment STC-1-11 if it is modified as suggested in this staff report and recommend a no vote, seconded by ZIMMER and failed on a 4 AYES - 6 NOES vote (AYES: BRENNAN, KINSEY, MCCLURE, MITCHELL; NOES: SANCHEZ, STONE, ZIMMER, BLANK, BOCHCO, SHALLENBERGER; ABSENT: BLOOM, BURKE) (DENIED). COMPARISON & CONTRAST ANALYSIS OF LA BAHIA & VILLAS DE CARMELO is presented. An ADDENDUM, including a Roster of Commissioners, is provided.
COMPARISON & CONTRAST ANALYSIS OF LA BAHIA & VILLAS DE CARMELO
• Regarding La Bahia, the City of Santa Cruz proposed to amend its Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) to modify the LUP and add a new IP district and site standards that would apply only to the historic La Bahia site in order to facilitate demolition of the La Bahia buildings and related facilities and redevelopment of the site as a condominium hotel with restaurant and conference facilities. The proposed amendment would increase the scale of development allowed on the site (from a maximum of 4 stories and 43 feet for primary structures to a maximum of 5½ stories and 61 feet for up to 60% of the site).
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, Widewaters proposes an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan to change Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from MDR/2 to HDR/12.5 in the Coastal Zone for the construction of a total of 46 condominium units.
• Regarding La Bahia, the City of Santa Cruz conceptually approved the 125-unit condominium hotel/conference center project “that this amendment is designed to facilitate,” although final City action is pending Commission action on the amendment.
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, on April 6, 2010, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea unanimously passed and adopted a Resolution expressing opposition to the Villas de Carmelo project located at 24945 Valley Way in the City’s Sphere of Influence; the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has not yet considered the LCP amendment.
• Regarding La Bahia, Coastal Commission Staff recommended approval of the LCP amendment, if modified.
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, Coastal Planner Mike Watson wrote “we do not believe that the DEIR accurately and appropriately analyzes the water supply, traffic, and land use issues associated with the project, and that the analysis of consistency with existing plans and policies is incorrect and incomplete.” (Letter on Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Villas de Carmelo Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 7, 2010)
• Regarding La Bahia, the Coastal Commission staff stated the proposed LCP amendment was a “project-driven LCP amendment” and the LCP amendment is “designed to facilitate a project.”
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, the County’s proposed LCP amendment is similarly a project-driven LCP amendment and the proposed LCP amendment is designed to facilitate the Villas de Carmelo project.
• Regarding La Bahia. La Bahia required a “new zoning district” to “increase the scale of development allowed on the site (from a maximum of 4 stories and 43 feet for primary structures to a maximum of 5½ stories and 61 feet for up to 60% of the site)."
Villas de Carmelo requires a change in zoning from existing medium density residential (MDR/2) allowing seven residences to high density residential (HDR/12.5) to accommodate a total of forty-six condominium units.
• Regarding La Bahia, Santa Cruz Mayor Ryan Coonerty stated that there is broad community support for the La Bahia project; he cited a petition of 856 signatures in support of the project and support from the local daily and weekly newspapers, local officials, business groups and neighborhoods.
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, on April 6, 2010, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea unanimously passed and adopted a Resolution expressing opposition to the Villas de Carmelo project located at 24945 Valley Way in the City’s Sphere of Influence and neighborhood residents are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the LCP Amendment and proposed Villas de Carmelo project.
• Don Webber, a Beach Hill resident who co-founded the Build a Better La Bahia Coalition of labor groups and historic preservationists, stated at the public hearing that the project as a massive, expensive hotel that would dominate the residential neighborhoods behind it...“The commission is charged with the duty to protect coastal resources not developer conveniences.”
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SACNC) supporters expressed support for the existing County LCP and General Plan and charged the County with giving Widewaters special treatment for their Villas de Carmelo project.
• At the public hearing for La Bahia, supporters for the project “outnumbered criticism 4 to 1.”
At County public hearings for Villas de Carmelo, public speakers were nearly unanimous in their opposition to a zoning change from MDR to HDR and the proposed Villas de Carmelo project.
• Vice Chairman/Commissioner Mark Stone, a Santa Cruz County Supervisor, stated he “feared special zoning for the upscale hotel would set a precedent for future development requests involving large projects."
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson cited a for sale property information sheet as evidence that a change in zoning to HDR (“upzoning”) would set a precedent for future development in the Carmel area.
• Commissioner Sanchez voiced her opposition to the LCP amendment with concerns about “bulk and scale” of project and character of surrounding community of Beach Hill and approval of a 100% condo/hotel at this site would set a “terrible precedent.”
Regarding Villas de Carmelo, SOCNC supporters have expressed concerns about bulk and scale of the Villas de Carmelo project and the proposed project is “out-of-character” with the surrounding community of Carmel.
• Commissioner Dayna Bochco said she was “convinced the project would alter views and fail to preserve the Beach Hill neighborhood as outlined in the city's coastal plan.”
At public hearings for Villas de Carmelo, SOCNC speakers expressed the concern that the project would change and degrade the existing surrounding neighborhoods.
ADDENDUM:
California Coastal Commission grounds La Bahia hotel plan; 'It's over," says developer, By J.M. BROWN, Santa Cruz Sentinel, 08/11/2011
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Archived Meetings Video & Audio
Roster of Commissioners
Steve Blank
San Francisco, CA
Public Member
Dayna Bochco
San Francisco, CA
Public Member
Dr. William A. Burke
San Francisco, CA
Public Member
Wendy Mitchell
Sherman Oaks, CA
Public Member
Mary K. Shallenberger, Chair
Clements, CA
Public Member
Jana Zimmer
San Francisco, CA
Public Member
Martha McClure, Supervisor
Crescent City, CA
North Coast Representative
Steve Kinsey, Supervisor
San Rafael, CA
North Central Coast Representative
Mark W. Stone, Supervisor, Vice-Chair
Santa Cruz, CA
Central Coast Representative
Brian Brennan
San Francisco, CA
South Central Coast Representative
Richard Bloom, Councilmember
Santa Monica, CA
South Coast Representative
Esther Sanchez, Councilmember
Oceanside, CA
San Diego Coast Representative
1 comment:
It is important for supporters of the county LCP and General Plan to continue to remind Planning Commissioners and Supervisors of their responsibility to uphold the LCP and not dismiss parts of the LCP they individually may not agree with in order to recommend an LPC amendment to the Coastal Commission.
We will know the county is doing its job when it recognizes that a project driven LCP amendment is not the proper context to amend the LCP. For that reason alone, the majority of the Coastal Commissioners were correct in denying the La Bahia project, in my opinion.
Post a Comment