• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Aptos Community News

Sharing and caring about what happens in Aptos

  • Calendar
  • News
  • Parks & Rec
    • Beaches
    • Parks
    • Sports/Fitness
  • Shopping
  • Real Estate
    • Aptos Home Values
    • Aptos Homes for Sale
  • Eats
    • Bars
    • Cafe
    • Restaurants
    • Deli
  • Gems
  • Lifestyle
  • RSS
You are here: Home / Archives for board of supervisors

board of supervisors

Santa Cruz County Planning Further Vacation Rental Restrictions

November 13, 2017 by Seb Frey

Santa Cruz County Seal
Santa Cruz County Seal

Despite a large number of serious problems (homelessness, traffic, addiction, just to name a few) affecting the quality of life of everyone in Santa Cruz county, the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission is busily at work cooking up new and largely unnecessary vacation rental restrictions.

These additional restrictions will do nothing to alleviate the crushing housing availability and affordability problems we’re facing. Furthermore, it seems that nobody outside of County planning department staff (and perhaps a limited number of disgruntled neighbors) are actually calling for further vacation rental restrictions.  Nevertheless, a new ordinance is in the works and will be coming up for a vote of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors next month.

The proposed ordinance from the planning department staff on short term vacation rentals includes:

  1. Categorizing hosted rentals that have more than one bedroom available to qualify as bed and breakfasts inn, in which case the host would have to obtain a conditional permit under existing county code provisions.
  2. Making sure property owners obtain permits to host (i.e. even for renting out individual rooms)
  3. Limiting guests to one parking space
  4. Limit guest occupancy to 3 people per property excluding those under 8 years old
  5. Limit the number of nights a host can operate to no more than 55 nights per year in the three designated areas of Live Oak, Seacliffs/Aptos, and Davenport-Swanton area and no more than 110 nights in the rest of the county
  6. Places no limits on the number of permits available in a neighborhood (except where limits are already in place).
  7. Require annual reporting by hosts and annual renewal of permits
  8. The prohibition of ADUs, affordable housing, RVs, units occupied by long term rentals as a hosted rental
  9. Only permitting one guest rental per parcel (e.g. both units in a duplex could not be rented as vacation rentals)
  10. Allow only a single stay of up to 7 days per year without the requirement for a permit
  11. Require operators to obtain a TOT (Transient Occupancy tax) number from the County tax collector and to ensure TOT is paid

The County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the ordinance at their upcoming meeting on December 5th, 2017.  Concerned citizens should contact their Supervisor and make sure their voice are heard.

Related Posts On AptosCommunityNews

  • County is Planning Big Changes for Vacation Rentals (July 2, 2016)
  • Aptos Vacation Rental Restrictions Approved (January 27, 2015)
  • Planning Commission Recommends SADA Delay (November 12, 2014)
  • Aptos Vacation Rental Vote on November 12 (November 7, 2014)
  • Vacation Rental Restrictions coming to Aptos? (October 5, 2014)

Read a good book lately?

The Sold Book
Get My Book Today!

If you have some room on your reading list, I invite you to read my book Get It Sold! Now in its Second Edition! It's an easy read (just 145 pages!) and it tells you everything you need to know about selling your home quickly, easily, and at absolute peak pricing. I'll send it to you for free - no shipping charge either!

OK Send me a Copy!

Filed Under: News Tagged With: board of supervisors, vacation rentals

County is Planning Big Changes for Vacation Rentals

July 2, 2016 by Seb Frey

More Restrictions are coming for Aptos Vacation Rentals
More Restrictions are coming for Aptos Vacation Rentals
This article is provided courtesy of Robert Singleton, the Government Affairs Director for the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors.  It is being provided to readers of AptosCommunityNews as many Aptos residents and home owners will be affected by the proposed changes.

During their June meeting the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted to place significantly harsher restrictions on local vacation rental units and property owners. If you have been following this issue for the past couple of years then you were likely already aware of the two existing designated tourism districts in both Live Oak and Seacliff.

Essentially, these districts limit the total number of houses that can be used as short terms rentals, as well as the number of short term rentals per neighborhood block.

Last Tuesday, the Board not only created a new district (encompassing Davenport and the surrounding areas), but also adopted a half measure process that governs how these permits are to be awarded and renewed, both of which will hurt property owners.

Now the original stated purpose for the creation of these districts was twofold:

  1. limit the neighborhood impacts that are associated with vacation rentals, and
  2. protect units that would (could) be used as long term rentals.

The Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors opposed these new regulations from the beginning because we saw them as a violation of private property rights, but also because it’s a classic case of the government picking winners and losers. By creating an artificial scarcity in the marketplace for permits (whose potential value may exceed $100,000), the Board was effectively able to distort the value of all the affected properties in these areas. Starting day 1, the homes that had permits instantly became more valuable than those that didn’t, and thus it was (and still is) within every household’s self-interest to seek out a permit, even if they don’t intend to use it.

Now the unintended consequences of enacting such a policy are pretty clear, but rather than address the fundamental problem in approach (placing arbitrary limits on a high demand market), the Board doubled down with measures meant to diminish the potential negative repercussions of the policy.

First, they decided to not deed restrict the permits (which is unlike almost every other use permit on the books), electing instead to adopt a 5 year period of use, thus making the market distortion in home values a temporary phenomenon; while hopefully allowing for more households to take advantage of this price inflation once the first permits began to expire. They also decided to award the first permits to those homeowners who had already been paying Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which were few and far between. The rest of the permits: first come first served.

Now here is probably the most significant problem with this policy: If you limit the total number of properties that can be short term rentals, but choose not to pair the permit with the property, who gets to decide which properties get permits and when? Well they took the easy way out and basically created a process where no one decides, it’s as simple as whoever shows up first.

Buying a house is likely the most important investment a person will make in their lifetime, and now the County has the power to either add or takeaway a significant portion of that home’s value based upon what criteria? A permit that could easily be worth over $100,000 (in just revenue) over the 5 year period, and they have absolutely no process for determining who does or does not reap that benefit. First come, first served.

The Planning Commission, based upon a recommendation from staff, voted unanimously to build in a “grace period” whereby existing and legal short term rental units could reapply for the permit that they had already been enjoying. They were to be given up to 60 days to decide if they wanted to opt back into operation, so to speak, which they undoubtedly would because who wants to lose $100,000 of appraised value from their house?!? On Tuesday the Board (minus absent Zach Friend) voted to end that grace period entirely, and when paired with the first come first serve policy, basically means once those permits are up, no one knows what’s going to happen.

Staff and the Planning Commission both outlined multiple ways in which this problem could be avoided. They gave multiple options, including a lottery system and a criteria system. But the Board justified their stance in favor of the first come first served policy by stating “well we don’t know what’s going to happen when these permits come up for renewal, so let’s just wait until then.”

So there is now a massive economic interest in getting a vacation rental permit and no criteria for awarding that permit other than being one of the first people to grab it. They are no incentives for good financial standing, or good management, just incidental penalties for bad behavior. On top of this you don’t even have to use the permit. You only have to prove “significant rental use” when reapplying for your permit, 5 years later.

The County then also mandated that all new vacation rental units with 4 or more bedrooms (admittedly arbitrary) have to have a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator (ZA). Now beyond the practical problems associated with a public hearing (time of day, opportunity cost, etc.), there is no reason to even have one in the first place. Why? Because all new permits can already be appealed to that same ZA, through an already established process. Furthermore, the ZA has no grounds to deny an individual a permit anyway. If you meet all the requirements upon application then there are no other legal reasons why the ZA would be allowed to deny you.

So why do it?

The purpose is to intimidate would-be vacation landlords from going through the process to begin with. A mandatory public hearing creates the space for public shame. Again, even if the ZA can’t deny your permit you are still required to attend a hearing in which your neighbors (and frankly anyone who doesn’t like the idea of your vacation rental) are encouraged to show up and list all of the reasons why they don’t like your idea, despite the inherent economic benefit of getting one.

So this brings us to the most important part of this article: What can we do about this?

Good news! The ordinance has not yet been finalized and must go through both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors again before becoming law. This means we need still have time to fight this! Here’s what you can do:

  1. Attend any and all hearings of the County Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, and Board of Supervisors as possible. Even if they aren’t hearing this particular item on the day you attend, you should still stand up to speak during oral communications to let them know how you feel. The schedules for each of these bodies can be found here:
    a. Board of Supervisors
    b. Planning Commission
    c. Housing Advisory Commission
  2. If you cannot attend these meetings then please send a letter via email to all of the Supervisors and their staff: john.leopold@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, zach.friend@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us, greg.caput@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, bruce.mcpherson@co.santa-cruz.ca.us
  3. Write a letter to the editor to the Sentinel expressing your dissatisfaction with the new rules. Need material? Email me and I can provide you with some samples, or we can even write a letter together: gad@mysccar.org
  4. SHARE THIS ARTICLE! Seriously, share this article with all of your friends, post it on Facebook NextDoor, email it to your coworkers, send it to anybody who will listen!
  5. If you are interested in any of the above options but have questions or comments about anything in this article do not hesitate to email me: gad@mysccar.org. I can help you with what you want to say and how to say it. I am also going to start holding regular organizing meetings with people who are interested so that we can stay ahead of this issue.

Filed Under: News, Real Estate Tagged With: board of supervisors, vacation rentals

New Aptos Village Groundbreaking Moves Ahead

December 9, 2015 by Seb Frey

Aptos Village Site Map Phase 1, Courtesy Barry Swenson Builder
Aptos Village Site Map Phase 1, Courtesy Barry Swenson Builder

The Santa Cruz county Board of Supervisors held a meeting late yesterday afternoon to vote on approval of the final Aptos Village map.  Yesterday’s meeting was reportedly well attended by vocal and spirited opponents of the plan, but nevertheless, the board of supervisors did unanimously vote approval of the final map, as had been widely anticipated.  The Aptos Village Redevelopment project is moving forward.

A meeting was held on Wednesday morning at Cantine Wine Pub in the Aptos Village Square shopping center, to update local merchants on the plans for construction. Presenters included Mary Gourlay from Barry Swenson Builder, Jack Sohriakoff (a senior traffic engineer with Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works), and Patrick Mulhearn, aide to Santa Cruz County Supervisor Zach Friend. An audio copy of the conversation is embedded here for those who would like to hear about some of the construction details that were shared at today’s meeting.

Audio Recording of the Merchant’s Meeting

//siliconhomebroker.com/podcastgen/media/aptos-village-merchants-meeting-2015-12.m4a
Download audio file…

Barry Swenson Builder now plans to actually break ground on the project within the next several weeks – before the end of the year. Phase 1 will include erecting security fencing, building the pads where the historic Hihn Apple Barn will be moved, and cutting the interior roads for Aptos Village. While there will be several phases of construction, both by Barry Swenson Builder and the Santa Cruz county department of Public Works, it is expected that the new Aptos Village will begin to receive its first occupants within the next two years.

Filed Under: Developments, News, Real Estate Tagged With: Aptos Village, audio, barry swenson, board of supervisors

Ellen Pirie Talks Aptos Village, Rail Corridor

May 8, 2015 by Seb Frey

Ellen Pirie
Ellen Pirie, 2nd District Supervisor, 2001-2013

Former Santa Cruz County 2nd District Supervisor Ellen Pirie generously agreed to a conversation with Seb Frey (editor of Aptos Community News), to share her recollections and insights into the development of the new Aptos Village plan, as well as the Santa Cruz Rail Corridor.

The conversation was recorded via Skype, and is available here for you to listen to and enjoy. The conversation was lengthy and covered a lot of ground, touching on a number of topics, which are detailed here in this article. The first portion of the audio discusses the Aptos Village plan, and the portion about the rail corridor beings at about the 17:50 mark.

Listen to the Conversation

//siliconhomebroker.com/podcastgen/media/ellen-pirie-talks-aptos-village-rail-trail-2015-05-06.m4a

Download audio file…

Aptos Village Discussion

Old Aptos Village Plan
Aptos Village as Envisioned in 2003

 

According to Pirie, the original Aptos Village plan was adopted around 1977. The vacant portion of the Village is oddly configured, and the 8-acre site was owned by several different parties. One of the challenges in getting it redeveloped was that nobody wanted to be stuck with the cost of putting in the infrastructure.

Ellen recalled that in 2001, an out-of-area developer approached the county with the idea to build a Costco-like building on the vacant land, which according to the developer, would comply with then-existing Aptos Village plan. Ellen says that turned out not to be true, but it opened her eyes and spurred her to review the plan and take a fresh look at it, so we wouldn’t end up with anything like a Costco in that space.

She proposed to the county Board of Supervisors that we take another look at the Aptos Village plan. They authorized spending some money to do a public “visioning process” where the community could come together in a number of meetings and draw out what they wanted to see there.

Ellen remembers that a lot of the community got involved, with around 50-75 people at each meeting. There were “a ton of people” working on it, she said, and it was “very much a public process”. This process was run by consultants that the county hired to put what folks in the community envisioned down on paper. They started with the prior plan, and asked the public what they’d like to see in a new Village.

Community Participation

Community Meeting
Aptos Village Community Meeting on April 22, 2015

Today, there is a great deal of controversy about the work that went into designing and planning the new Aptos Village. Some members of the community today have alleged that the process was not public, and few meetings were held. According to Pirie, there were “way more than 20” meetings, that these went on “almost constantly” for about 10 years. There were meetings “all the time” – and all were public, although she mentioned that some groups would have smaller meetings to discuss, for example, how the rail line would be incorporated, or what the buildings would look like. These meetings, however, were also open to the public. Meetings were held at the fire station, Valencia school, some were at the Seacliff Inn, and in other venues as well.

Traffic

One concern area residents have today is, of course, the traffic impacts of a much denser use of the Village space. According to Pirie, traffic was then too a big concern, and an important issue for people. They had third party traffic studies (performed by paid, outside consultants, not county staff) done as part of this process – but she noted that early in her term, she was very skeptical of traffic studies. Over time, she grew to have more confidence in what the traffic engineers were saying. According to the studies which were performed, Aptos Village traffic will actually be better with the improvements. Of course, it will never be good at certain times of day, but at the least, should not be any worse that it is presently.

Water

California Drought
Is More Housing Wise in a Drought?

Water has been an important issue for a long time but while the plan was being worked on we weren’t in a drought that has now put it in the forefront of the public’s mind. Nevertheless, the County required pervious surfaces and stormwater retention onsite to increase groundwater percolation. The County and Soquel Creek Water District also required low flow water fixtures and water offsets. Ellen’s understanding is that Barry Swenson Builder, the project developer, started getting their water offsets 10 years ago.

Alternative Uses

Some in the community today would prefer that Aptos Village today remain largely unchanged – a quiet, open space. Ellen discussed the possibility of alternative uses for the property, for example, parkland. She noted that the problem with that is that the land was all privately owned. There was no public money to just buy the land and change the zoning to build a park. Consequently, creating a park wasn’t really on the radar. Rather, she recalled that there was strongest interest in restoring the Village as a commercial and residential center, the heart of Aptos.

Barry Swenson Builder

In recent public meetings, it has been alleged by some that Barry Swenson Builder has been shown special favor by the Board of Supervisors and the Santa Cruz County planning department. Pirie said flatly that the developer was not allowed to cut corners or given special exemptions. According to Pirie, it has been an “extremely difficult process” for Barry Swenson Builder – one that was very time consuming and expensive. Regarding these allegations, Pirie said, “that’s just not the case” that they got off easy, and, “the county has tortured them just like they torture everyone else.”

In a subsequent discussion, Ellen also noted how cool it would be to have a bike and pedestrian trail running through Aptos Village, connecting the greater community to the Village and to Nisene Marks park.

Santa Cruz Rail Corridor Discussion

Santa Cruz Coastal Rail
A scenic ride along the Santa Cruz Rail Corridor

Pirie also shared her perspective on the Santa Cruz rail corridor. She recounts that talk about redeveloping the rail line had been going on a long time. From the start of her term, Ellen was very enthusiastic about the prospect of acquiring the rail line and putting it to better use. She recalls that it was a very long, difficult process, and that Union Pacific was a difficult negotiating partner. It “probably was almost 20 years” from the time someone first got the idea to acquire the corridor, but the serious negotiations went on 10 years.

Early Support for the Project

There were a lot of early supporters, with a lot of interest in Santa Cruz in particular. Some supporters were “the train people” some were “the bike people,” but everyone shared the idea that it was an incredible asset for the county. There was a feeling that we can’t lose it, that if it were in private ownership, it could be sold or divided up. When they started negotiating the deal with Union Pacific, there were still trains running up to the Davenport cement plant. When the plant shut down it made a deal easier to negotiate, but more urgent to get it done.

Ellen stated that she believes that train service isn’t practical, and she favors removing the tracks and building a pedestrian and bicycle trail. She points out that trains are very expensive and difficult to operate, and you need a dense population for successful passenger rail service. There are other obstacles too, like the weight of rails and the geometry of the track. But the biggest problem, according to Pirie, is that trains are expensive and that big cities struggle to maintain them – and that for a small town, it’s virtually impossible.

When the deal was negotiated, Ellen thought the most important thing was to first secure the rail line, and then we could argue about how to use it afterwards. Everyone was together at the beginning, and were content with putting off the discussion about what we do with it until later.

Proposition 116

Part of the money to buy the corridor was California Proposition 116 money, but some of it was obtained from grants. Proposition 116 does specify that any funds obtained must be used for passenger rail service.  However, Pirie was careful to note that recipients of Proposition 116 funds are not required run passenger rail if it is not economically feasible.

Santa Cruz RTC Officials
RTC & Iowa Pacific Celebrate the Acquisition

The Santa Cruz RTC (Regional Transportation Commission) had performed a passenger rail feasibility study in late 1990’s which determined that every passenger would have to be underwritten by 60-70 dollars of public money, which “obviously wouldn’t work.” However, the definition of passenger rail is broad. The Train to Christmastown qualifies as passenger rail service, for example.

Rail Banking

If, however, the operators of the Train to Christmastown decide they want to cease operation, and there isn’t any other economically viable train proposal out there, the line can be “rail banked.” This is a Federal process, which allows communities to decide that while they can’t support a train today, they may want to in the future, and can save the corridor for that purpose. By “rail banking” the line, the easements and rights-of-way are protected and preserved. Much of the corridor land owned by the Santa Cruz RTC, but much is only an easement for transportation. With rail banking, we could remove the rail and keep the space, as well as the easements and right of way.

If at some point we decide passenger rail service is not feasible, that is, if the new the study currently being done by the RTC says it is not, we can bank those rails, build out a trial, and use it for however long. Then, when and if train service becomes a more viable option, we can build the track again. Pirie noted that we would have to replace the current rails anyway for any usable passenger service.

In the event we do decide to put the rails in the bank, there is no obligation to repay the proposition 116 funds to the CTC (California Transportation Commission). While those funds are to be used to purchase rail lines for passenger rail, the state of California is not going to require communities such as Santa Cruz to do anything that does not make economic sense. The RTC has to act in good faith in making these decisions.

Passenger Rail Feasibility Studies

Regarding the previous feasibility study, Pirie notes that it was done before her time on the board, but thinks that the study was done under the assumption that the rail was locally owned, without having to pay Union Pacific for its use. As to why the current study might yield a different result than the past study, Ellen wasn’t aware of what might be different this time around, but speculated that rail service might be easier or cheaper to run now compared to then.

Rail vs. Trail

Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic
Trail Network

Many in the community point out that the current plan for the corridor (the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network) includes rail and trail, and we don’t have to make a choice: we can have it all. However, the reality is that old trestles rarely have room for both train service and a bike and pedestrian trail. Pirie pointed out that there are something like 33 trestles on the whole line, and they are a problem. Everywhere you have a trestle, we cannot also have a trail there. Of course, we could build something next to it, perhaps cantilever something off an existing trestle. There are a variety of things that can be done, but they are expensive. She suggests we could also be saving up for that as time goes by; if we can’t do train now, we can save up to do it at some time in the future.

The Way Forward

Pirie was asked how we might build out the trail if the new RTC study also concludes that passenger train service is not viable. To that, she responded that the RTC has a contract with Iowa Pacific (operators of the Train to Christmastown), and as long as that company wants to provide service on that line, we’d be hard pressed to cancel the contract given the restrictions on the proposition 116 funds.

If, for whatever reason, Iowa Pacific does decide to close up shop and abandon the contract, the RTC would then have to decide if the trail is the way to go. Other questions would then arise: how would the trail be funded? What would it look like, and how would it be maintained? These decisions will rest with the RTC, however, the RTC board is composed of elected officials who will, she said, be heavily influenced by pubic opinion.

What’s Next for Ellen Pirie

So what’s next for Ellen Pirie? Since she and her husband had to leave Peace Corps Ethiopia early, one possibility is to serve another year or two as a Peace Corps volunteer somewhere else in the world. Shorter term, she and her husband bought a camper and are planning to go camping and traveling around for a while. They’re really enjoying retired life: they’re “on a roll” and really enjoying themselves. They still have a house in La Selva Beach, and think they will be coming back to live here. She concludes by noting that it’s great to be back, and Santa Cruz county is a wonderful place.

Filed Under: Developments, News Tagged With: Aptos Village, barry swenson builder, board of supervisors, ellen pirie, iowa pacific, planning, Rail Trail, traffic, union pacific, zoning

Aptos Village Design Changes Unanimously Approved

May 5, 2015 by Seb Frey

Aptos Village Approved
Aptos Village Design Changes Approved

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors today unanimously approved the changes to the Aptos Village design requested by the developer, Barry Swenson Builder. The project initially won approval in 2012 after a decade in the planning process, but that approval granted the builder some flexibility in the final design. The approval today from the Board of Supervisors should allow the project to move forward with the requested modifications.

The meeting was well attended, despite starting at 9 AM on a weekday. Dozens of members of the community got up to speak, with proponents and opponents roughly evenly divided. Most of those opposed appeared to be the members of our community which will be most adversely affected by the construction and increased congestion in the village – that is, those living up Cathedral Drive, Trout Gulch Road, and Valencia Road.

Audio Recording of the Supervisor’s Meeting

//siliconhomebroker.com/podcastgen/media/supervisors-aptos-village-design-change-2015-05-05.m4a
Download audio file…

The portion of the meeting which dealt with Aptos Village lasted over an hour and a half, and ended with little debate among the supervisors before they unanimously approved the changes. It seemed as though their support was a foregone conclusion, and there was substantial but muted commentary from those in attendance that their voices had not been heard, or at least not given due consideration.

At the end of the discussion and before the vote, Supervisors Zach Friend, John Leopold and Bruce McPherson did make some remarks. Supervisor Friend spoke to both the process by which the project was approved, and the need for a project like this. Many in attendance today who opposed to the project expressed a sentiment that the project was being pushed on the community with little input. Supervisor Friend addressed this head on, and seemed genuinely to feel as though the local government had in fact sought substantial community involvement and feedback.

Supervisor Leopold remarked that the government should be committed to a good public process, and that a “ten year project” with over 20 meetings meets that requirement. He went on to say he understands the community’s concerns about the density of the project. He mentioned specifically the Sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, which calls for greater density within the urban services line (the area served by public water and sewer) along the Soquel Drive corridor. By concentrating development within this area (in which Aptos Village is located), we can keep more parts of our county rural. Perhaps counter-intuitively, this kind of denser development is in fact more sustainable than the kind of sprawl found in so many suburban communities in many parts of the state and country. According to Leopold, from an environmental point of view, the Aptos Village is in many ways a model for future development within the county.

Supervisor McPherson mentioned that one of the main concerns from Santa Cruz county residents is the lack of affordable housing in the community, and that more housing must be built. He went on to say that the Aptos Village project will provide additional, much-needed housing, and that the new Aptos Village is a very environmentally sound project.

IMG_7518
IMG_7519
IMG_7523
IMG_7525
IMG_7526
IMG_7528
IMG_7532
IMG_7535
IMG_7536
IMG_7537

Filed Under: Developments, News, Real Estate Tagged With: Aptos Village, audio, barry swenson, board of supervisors, john leopold, sustainability, sustainable santa cruz, zach friend

Supervisors will Discuss Aptos Village Design Changes

May 3, 2015 by Seb Frey

Board of Supervisors Meeting
Board of Supervisors Meeting

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will discuss Aptos Village design changes at their regular meeting on Tuesday, May 5th at 9 AM.   They will also discuss the recent appeal to the Level 4 planning approval. The Aptos Village Plan was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in 2012, but when approval was given, the builder was allowed some flexibility to make changes, and these changes will be discussed at this meeting.

The Aptos Village Design
The Aptos Village Design

The changes include:

  • Re-routed Aptos Village Way around Bay View Hotel property, splitting Building 6 into two smaller buildings
  • Relocated future SCWD water well site, (with Soquel Creek Water District collaboration)
  • Minor boundary adjustment along donated future park land to accommodate more parking
    3 parking garage spaces added to back of Building 7
  • Using optional 6 additional condo units in Building 3
  • Deleted man bridge between Building 3 and Building 4, (for FNMA compliance), and added an elevator
  • Removed interior courtyards and back alley at Building 12 and added backyards

It is expected that the meeting will be well attended, and the public will be given an opportunity to speak and share their thoughts and opinions on the project and the design changes.  As the meeting will be held during working hours, those who are unable to attend are encouraged to give email Supervisor Zach Friend at zach.friend@co.santa-cruz.ca.us and let him know their thoughts.

Audio from the meeting will be live streamed, and should also be available on Santa Cruz Community Television.

Filed Under: Developments, News Tagged With: Aptos Village, board of supervisors, zach friend

Planning Commission Recommends SADA Delay

November 12, 2014 by Seb Frey

At the end of a lengthy two and a half hour meeting today, the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission voted to delay any approval of enhanced vacation rental restrictions in what they are calling the the Seacliff-Aptos Designated Area (“SADA”).

The council meeting today was well attended by the public, and a number of citizens got up to speak about the proposed changes to the vacation rental ordinance, particularly in respect to SADA. There were some representatives from the Live Oak area to speak of the success the LODA (Live Oak Designated Area) restrictions in that community. Many of those who spoke against the SADA restrictions were from the professional real estate business community, but virtually all of the concerned parties who actually own property in the SADA area were opposed.

There was broad support on the commission for the proposed changes to the vacation rental ordinance that were not particular to the SADA. However, there was a feeling from some on the commission that not enough time had been allowed to receive input from the community regarding the special SADA restrictions, and that the current proposed legislation establishing the SADA vacation rental restrictions should have some changes before it could be approved by the planning commission – or perhaps scrapped all together.

A full recording of today’s meeting is available online:

Recording of 11/12/14 Planning Commission Meeting

//siliconhomebroker.com/podcastgen/download.php?filename=2014-11-12_episode-00001-vro-sada.mp3

What does today’s vote mean? In the words of Kathy Previsich, the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission’s Planning Director:

The version of the ordinance that will be presented to the board of supervisors will be a version that does not talk about a Seacliff-Aptos Designated Area. The present approach will continue to apply in the Seacliff-Aptos Designated Area. We wouldn’t even have the words “SADA” in there. The current regulations as modified by the other tweaks to the ordinance with regards to contact information or any of those other tweaks. That would go to the board of supervisors for action and onto the coastal commission for its consideration relative to …. so early in 2015 staff will do further analysis, read through all your testimony and letters and propose some alternate approaches which could include not having any special regulations for SADA or having the SADA map be different to carve out areas that are very concentrated already with vacation rentals and potentially to establish some streets that would be a higher percentage rather than 20, could be 50%, we’ll have a variety of approaches and basically talk about those through community workshops and receive your feedback on which approach might work in the Seacliff-Aptos area, sort of like what we did when we first adopted the vacation rental ordinance, we got a lot of feedback, we continue to make adjustments and refinements to reflect all the feedback we got and get to a consensus, compromise approach. But, based on experience we’ll want to make some tweaks, and one of those tweaks may be an extension of the live oak approach to the Seacliff-Aptos area but we’ll continue that dialog.

It should be noted that this is merely the recommendation to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, and the debate will be taken up by the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting on December 16. The Board may not agree with the planning commission’s recommendation. The board will have to agree that they want planning staff to continue to work with the community on the issue.

Concerned citizens are encouraged to continue to monitor the situation and be in touch with their representative on the Board of Supervisors, and should plan to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 16. As always, keep reading Aptos Community News for the latest information.

Pictures from the Meeting

IMG_3829
IMG_3830
IMG_3831
IMG_3832
IMG_3833
IMG_3835
IMG_3836
IMG_3837
IMG_3838
IMG_3839
IMG_3840
IMG_3842
IMG_3843
IMG_3844
IMG_3845
IMG_3841

Filed Under: News, Real Estate Tagged With: audio, board of supervisors, government, loda, permits, planning commission, podcast, sada, vacation rental

Supervisor Friend pushes Aptos Broadband

December 9, 2013 by Seb Frey

The Silicon Valley Business Journal recently published a great article about the efforts of Aptos resident and Supervisor Zach Friend to improve the quality of Internet broadband to Santa Cruz county.

The article quotes Supervisor Friend as saying “Our available residential internet access is one step above a joke,” referring to his home in Aptos, which as residents know offers few options for Internet connectivity.

Check out Supervisor Zach Friend on Facebook and at the County Supervisor’s web site.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: board of supervisors, government, internet, zach friend

Primary Sidebar

Brought to you by

Sebastian "Seb" Frey
Sebastian "Seb" Frey
This site is developed, maintained, and edited by Sebastian "Seb" Frey, Aptos Realtor® and author of Get It Sold!. If you'd like to have your business, event, or issue featured here, please contact me at (831) 704-6873.

Seen SebFrey.TV?

As Seen on SebFrey.TV

Aptos Home Search






Search Aptos Community News

Pages

  • Aptos on NextDoor
  • Aptos Points of Interest
  • Aptos Videos on YouTube
  • Neighborhoods of Aptos, California
    • Day Valley
    • Mar Vista Neighborhood of Aptos
    • Rio del Mar
    • Seacliff Neighborhood of Aptos
    • Seascape in Aptos
    • Seascape Uplands
    • Vienna Woods
  • Projects
    • Aptos Village Redevelopment
    • Aptos Water Supply Improvement
    • Highway 1 Widening
    • Mar Vista Bridge
    • Par 3 Golf Course in Aptos
    • Rancho del Mar Redevelopment
    • Santa Cruz Rail Trail in Aptos
    • Seacliff Village Redevelopment

Latest Places

January 2021 Aptos Real Estate Update

If you ask around, you’ll find very few people who are sad to see 2020 in the rearview mirror. In so many respects, it was an absolutely awful year, for our community and the country as a whole. At the time of this writing, the nation records its 400,000th death attributed to COVID – with […]

University of Hawaii Hilo Performing Arts Center

Copyright © 2023 Sebastian "Seb" Frey. Please see my Privacy Policy. and browse the HTML Site Map
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.