Housing harbinger: Is the community ready for more projects like Santa Cruz’s Food Bin redevelopment?
In 1969, singer Edwin Starr belted a question heard round the world, “War, what is it good for?” and then followed it up with the definitive answer, “Absolutely nothing.”
While reporting an article published Tuesday about the Food Bin redevelopment in the city of Santa Cruz, the new powers of developers to get what they want, and the diminished influence of project-by-project politics, I found myself regularly humming Starr’s refrain, albeit with my own spin, “Public hearings on developments at city council and planning commission meetings: what are they good for in California’s new housing landscape? Absolutely nothing. (?)”
These hearings mean much less in deciding the fate of a new development than they once did in California communities. Developers know it, but the community and elected officials are still catching up. “Absolutely nothing” may ultimately prove to be an extreme answer to the question, but we are in a moment where everyone is still trying to figure it out.
The Food Bin redevelopment, a five-story, 59-unit apartment project proposed by Workbench, will be a reset for the Mission Street corridor, where buildings hardly rise above two stories, and none over three; that’s to say nothing of the density. It may also prove to be a reset for the public’s understanding of their influence in killing or drastically minimizing a proposed development. The Santa Cruz City Council will take a final vote on the project Tuesday. As I report in my story, the vote will be somewhat of a proxy: The proposal aligns with state law and the city’s general plan, which makes it nearly impossible for the city council to deny, despite neighbor objections.
As Jamileh Cannon, Workbench’s co-founder and head architect, told me, it’s an “exciting time” to be a housing developer, but there are new challenges to balance; namely, continuing to pursue ambitious, slam-dunk housing projects while making the community feel considered despite its diminished power.
Of Note
A power struggle at the board of supervisors: “Dire,” “debt,” “cuts” and “layoffs” are not the words the public wants to hear from the elected officials responsible for managing their tax dollars and services. All four were thrown around last week as tempers flared during the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ 2024-25 budget discussion.
Opening up the discussions last week, the county’s chief executive, Carlos Palacios, emphasized the difficulty in shaping a budget that did not propose program cuts or layoffs at a time when the county is desperate for financial wiggle room. However, that requires trade-offs, and Palacios decided to not put any local tax revenue toward regular road maintenance.
District 1 Supervisor Manu Koenig rejected that proposal, saying roads were among the most basic services offered by a government. He proposed directing Palacios to put $4 million of the county’s tax revenue into roads, and $6 million from the county’s new sales tax increase that voters approved in March through Measure K. “We cannot go on like this,” Koenig said of the county’s lack of road investment.
Palacios jumped on the defensive, reminding Koenig that the money he sought would require cuts to another department’s budget or programs.
“That’s going to be very painful,” Palacios said. “If we’re going to blow up the budget, we can do that, I can do that, and we can have 300 people [at the next budget hearing on June 4] and have a massive food fight, and I don’t think anything is going to change. Every cent is allocated. There is no new funding.”
Koenig said he didn’t see an easier way to do it. At one point, District 4 Supervisor Felipe Hernandez supported Koenig’s motion to send Palacios back to propose cuts in the name of road maintenance; however, the vote would have fallen at a 2-2 tie, because in the middle of the discussion, District 2 Supervisor Zach Friend left the dais without explanation and did not return. Friend later told me he had a leak at his house and scheduled a plumber to come out at that time.
When I asked him why he didn’t say anything about his departure to the public he’s accountable to, despite the supervisors having more votes to cast, he defended his reason for leaving but said, “I can see where you’re coming from.”
The four remaining supervisors ultimately decided on a compromise, led by District 3 Supervisor Justin Cummings, that directs Palacios to come back in September with options for how the county might better invest in road infrastructure.
Looking Ahead
Clarity on the Watsonville Airport: I’ve written about local governments, in some form, across the country for the past decade, and this week I’ve run into a first. The Watsonville City Council will vote to clarify a decision from more than two months ago regarding the closure of a runway at Watsonville Municipal Airport. The resolution emphasizes that the city council voted only to explore a runway closure, not definitively close it. The city council in March narrowly supported a closure as a way to unlock land around the airport for housing development, but the Federal Aviation Administration will first have to greenlight the plan.
A vote clarifying the intention of a prior decision is not too uncommon, but the resolution before the Watsonville City Council cites specific moments, with video timestamps, from that initial March 19 meeting to make its point. It reads more like an evidentiary document you’d find in a court filing, and that’s likely because the city is facing an active lawsuit from the Watsonville Pilots Association, which claims the city council voted to shut down the runway, not simply explore its closure.
Cannabis overhaul in South County: It seems that eight years after California legalized recreational cannabis, communities are rethinking how to regulate the market. Watsonville, the City of Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz County governments have all weighed significant changes to their cannabis rules, and Tuesday, the Watsonville City Council will take the first swing at codifying some of those changes. Among them is increasing the maximum grow area for cultivation permits by 340%, from 5,000 to 22,000 square feet. The city will also look to expand its cannabis manufacturing permits from nine to 15 citywide.
Independent police audit recommends changes: The City of Santa Cruz’s independent police auditor, OIR Group, released its annual audit of the Santa Cruz Police Department and will present its report to the Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday. OIR Group listed 14 recommended changes for the city’s law enforcement, several of which deal with managing the officers who witness an officer-involved shooting, and changing a policy that allows officers to review their body-worn camera footage before making an official witness statement.
Weekly News Diet
Local: After some pressure, the community finally received clarity last week on when the Sheriff’s Office might begin allowing Santa Cruz County Jail inmates to hug their families again. The jail’s contact visits program has been on hold since 2020. Sheriff Jim Hart said contact visits could resume by the end of summer, but will depend on hiring.
Golden State: Graduate student workers at UC Santa Cruz went on strike last week, protesting campus police’s treatment of pro-Palestinian protestors. On Tuesday, graduate student workers at UCLA and UC Davis followed UCSC’s lead, walking out on their jobs and demanding amnesty for protestors. The strikes come at a critical time for the campuses, where students are preparing to take their end-of-quarter finals. The university system’s president said the protests are a violation of the workers’ labor contract.
National: How does one push for the vice presidency without coming off like they want it too badly? Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is attempting to walk that line as the 2024 election draws closer and the window for Donald Trump to pick a running mate narrows.
One Great Vintage Read
Walking by Henry David Thoreau, for The Atlantic (1862)
I spent the holiday weekend hiking in Big Sur, surprised that my favorite trails remain somewhat of a secret to the throngs of Memorial Day Weekend visitors. Hey, you all enjoy the concrete majesty of Bixby Bridge, I will go lose myself among the redwoods, deep into the landscape’s canyons and ridges.
It’s difficult to spend the weekend walking through some of the country’s finest stretches of wilderness without thinking of Henry David Thoreau, the 19th-century naturalist who urged us to get out of the office, the home, the chair, and engage directly with the natural world. Among the best examples of this work is his essay, “Walking,” the only piece of literature you’ll ever need to inspire you to get up and move around.
After re-reading the essay this weekend, I was surprised by Thoreau’s clairvoyance.
“At present, in this vicinity, the best part of the land is not private property; the landscape is not owned, and the walker enjoys comparative freedom. But possibly the day will come when it will be partitioned off into so-called pleasure-grounds, in which a few will take a narrow and exclusive pleasure only, — when fences shall be multiplied, and man-traps and other engines invented to confine men to the public road, and walking over the surface of God’s earth shall be construed to mean trespassing on some gentleman’s grounds. To enjoy a thing exclusively is commonly to exclude yourself from the true enjoyment of it. Let us improve our opportunities, then, before the evil days come.”