As the clock inched toward midnight on Monday at Carpinteria City Hall, Planning Commission Chair John Moyer asked his fellow commissioners if they had any other questions about the hotly debated Surfliner Inn plans before them.
“I couldn’t formulate a question if you paid me a million dollars,” Vice Chair Jane Benefield said, with five long hours of public comment and staff and development team presentations behind her.
“Me either,” Moyer said. “I second that.”
The four commissioners remaining on the dais unanimously voted to bump back their vote on one of Carpinteria’s most contentious issues to Oct. 5 at 5:30 p.m. — during daytime hours. (“7 is my bedtime,” Moyer joked.)
They will vote in October absent one member: commissioner Alexandra “Xy” VanAntwerp, also a District 5 City Council candidate, who had recused herself hours earlier from the Surfliner discussion.
She said the inn’s development team “threatened” her and the city with legal action if she voted on the project because of alleged bias.
Two Hats, One Project
The city is wearing “two hats” with this project, City Legal Counsel Jena Shoaf Acos said: a landlord and a regulatory agency.
The 36-room inn with 46 public parking spaces is proposed for 499 Linden Ave., a city-owned lot on the mountain side of the railroad tracks that is currently occupied by a 113-space parking lot: Parking Lot #3.
The city would lease the land to the development team, 499 Linden Managers LLC, for 55 years for 5.5% of the appraised fair market value, under a lease disposition and development agreement signed between the city and the developers in 2021.
The city would also receive 4.5% of gross income revenue.
The formal lease between the city and the development team must still be signed. The 499 Linden Ave. property’s appraised fair market value hasn’t yet been done. Shoaf Acos said the city didn’t want to prematurely appraise the lot before it was ready to sign the lease.
Between the rent and the percentage of gross income revenue, the city could see $1.8 million in annual revenues, by the development team’s estimates.
The team has also said the inn will result in a boost to the city’s transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenues. A UC Santa Barbara Economic Forecast analysis found the inn would generate $46.6 million in total economic output within the city during the first five years of construction and operation.
The development team would also fund the construction of a new 95-space public parking lot — proposed Parking Lot #4 — at 399 Linden Ave., a city-owned parcel on the ocean side of the railroad tracks.
A formal 10-foot-wide trail and restrooms would also replace the dirt trail that is currently there.
The plan originally had two-way traffic going through the new parking lot. Based on public feedback offered during the draft environmental review process, city staff has now recommended one-way traffic, with an entrance on Linden Avenue and an exit onto Elm Avenue.
Carpinteria Fire Protection District Fire Marshal Michael LoMonaco told the commission that revising the proposed Parking Lot #4 to have one-way traffic would not significantly change evacuation routes in the Carpinteria Beach Neighborhood.
Both parking lots would remain open for public use. Per the development team, parking studies from 2020 and 2026 show those lots would adequately serve the area’s parking needs (a statement refuted by project opponents).
Parking Lot #4 would also have to be completed by the time construction on the inn could begin, per city staff.
Read more about the history of the project here.
‘Obtrusive’ or ‘Carpinteria-sized’?
There is a limit to the number of people who are allowed in the Council Chambers at one time, LoMonaco, the fire marshal, reminded the room as community members streamed in. They packed every single audience seat and lined up along the walls.
For those who couldn’t snag a coveted seat inside, city staff set up an overflow section outside, with a TV screen that offered a slightly delayed stream of the Planning Commission meeting.
As the meeting began, Vice Chair Benefield waved the thick stack of speaker slips in her hand in the air.
“More than I’ve seen before,” she said.
Opponents of the project had shown up in full force.
They called the inn “obtrusive” and said it would block mountain views. Per the plans, the inn’s height would range from 25 to 29 feet at the roofline, and 37 feet, 1 inch accounting for stairs and elevator’s architectural elements.
They said the project would cause parking issues and traffic congestion, and questioned its safety — and attractiveness to hotel patrons — given the proximity to the railroad tracks.
Ariana Katovich, a lawyer representing two property owners whose parcel abuts the proposed new parking lot, called the recommended reconfiguration of Parking Lot #4 into one-way traffic the “nightmare on Elm Avenue.”
She — and others — said putting outbound traffic onto what is currently a dead-end street would cause issues.
“You’d think it was your nightmare, too, if you lived on this sweet, quiet little street, and all of a sudden, a permanent and continuous stream of cars from a new public parking lot was driving past your property,” she said.
Many took issue with the city’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis, calling it biased and wanting it done again. Some said the switch to one-way traffic in the new parking lot should require recirculating the EIR.
City staff and the development team said that one-way traffic was evaluated in the final EIR and, under the definitions outlined in state law, does not cause any new significant environmental impacts than the two-way traffic proposal.
Others had concerns about the noise from the inn’s rooftop bar.
“When (patrons) leave the building and head to their cars… conversation will still be going on in the parking lots, along with engine noises, the slamming of car doors, all late night, during most people’s sleeping time,” Roberta Lehtinen said.
She said the “considerable amount of glass, wine and beer bottles” from the restaurant and bar will also “make a loud clatter” when put into dumpsters.
Supporters — sporting blue and white “all aboard” stickers, a nod to 499 Linden Ave.’s railroad connection — pushed back.
They said the boutique inn was perfectly “Carpinteria-sized” and that it would bring in much-needed revenue to a city that is facing budget cuts and dwindling savings.
Jason Rodriguez, owner of The Food Liaison, pointed toward Linden Square as an example of an underutilized spot that is now a bustling hub of activity and said Parking Lot #3 could become the same.
Justin Fitzgerald, owner of Esau’s Cafe, called parking a “bogeyman” topic. He said the tourism that the Surfliner Inn will bring means much-needed money in the pockets of the small Carpinteria business owners.
In the end, just over 40 people spoke during public comment. Roughly two-thirds of them opposed the project and one third were project supporters.
A Surprise Recusal
The Monday night meeting began with, to some, an unexpected announcement: commissioner VanAntwerp would not vote on the project.
Before she became a commissioner in 2025, VanAntwerp was a supporter of Measure T, a 2022 ballot measure that sought to rezone Parking Lot #3 so the Surfliner Inn couldn’t be built.
She said the development team’s attorney sent “threatening correspondence” to the city that “implied legal action against the city of Carpinteria and myself.”
The letter requested her “immediate recusal” from voting on the project or a City Council vote to remove her from the commission, she said.
“We all know, and the developer knows, that the city is not in a strong financial position, and every dollar the city spends on legal fees is a dollar — or should I say millions of dollars — that cannot be spent providing services to residents,” she said.
“I am forced to make a decision that trades off basic principles of being an actively involved community member against large legal fees the city cannot afford.”
VanAntwerp shared with Noozhawk a July 22 letter her own attorney sent to the city, which stated she hasn’t made public statements about the project since she became a commissioner.
Surfliner Inn developer Whitt Hollis told Noozhawk the development team has a “constitutional right to due process.”
He denied that the team threatened her.
“We just pointed out that we believe her statements, which she has a constitutional right to make… interferes with being objective and unbiased,” he said.
With VanAntwerp out, four commissioners remain to vote on the project plan: Moyer, Benefield, David Allen and Glenn La Fevers.
The commission will not take further public comment on Oct. 5. That meeting will also take place at Carpinteria City Hall, 5775 Carpinteria Ave. It will begin at 5:30 p.m.
The commission’s decision on the Surfliner Inn — yes or no — is appealable to the City Council.
