The Carpinteria Planning Commission greenlit the hotly debated Surfliner Inn project on Monday night.
The commission’s decision is appealable to the City Council, and Surfliner Inn developer Whitt Hollis told Noozhawk he believes the project will ultimately come before the five-person council.
But Monday night marked a big win for the development team and a blow against those who had fought so hard against it.
“We’re very happy,” Hollis said.
The milestone vote for the project came down to two motions: one to certify the environmental impact report, and another to approve the development plan and associated permits.
The former passed unanimously, minus one commissioner who recused herself in September.
The latter passed 3-1, with commissioners John Moyer, David Allen and Glenn LaFevers in favor, and commissioner Jane Benefield opposed.
The commission initially had been poised to vote on the project on Sept. 21, but chose to push the matter back to its Oct. 5 meeting as the September meeting inched closer to midnight.
The 36-room inn itself and 46 public parking spaces are proposed for 499 Linden Ave. That is the site of a city-owned lot — Parking Lot #3 — with 113 parking spaces that are located on the mountain of the railroad tracks.
Associated project amenities include a pool, a restaurant and a rooftop bar.
The development team, 499 Linden Managers LLC, would also fund the construction of a 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.
That lot would also have a public bathroom, electric vehicle charging and bicycle parking, as well as a formal 10-foot-wide trail.
That land was closed to the public for years and used by private residents adjacent to the lot. A dirt trail open to the public currently runs through it.
A formal lease must still be signed, but under a land disposition and development agreement signed between the development team and the council in 2021, the city would lease Parking Lot #3 to the development team for 55 years for 5.5% of the appraised fair market value.
The city would also receive 4.5% of gross revenue.
The development team has estimated that between the percentage of gross revenue and the rent, the city could see $1.8 million annually.
The commissioners on Monday night went back and forth on a few details: the number of large events that would be allowed; the height of the wall on the south side of Parking Lot #4; and whether to leave open the option to restripe or extend Lot #4 in the future, if parking needs arise.
The final vote included a cap on 24 large events per year, defined as those with at least 100 attendees but no more than allowed by the fire marshal.
Events must wrap by 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11 p.m. Friday through Sunday, and music must cease by 10 p.m.
The first three large events will also be separately monitored for attendee noise and music. Those results will be submitted to the city’s Community Development Department, which will decide on any changes from there.
The rooftop is also subject to a noise limit of 5 decibels above ambient noise.
The final vote also included a swap from a 4-foot wall to a 6-foot solid wall to reduce headlight glare and noise on the surrounding neighbors, and a contingency plan to possibly modify Lot #4 if needed in the future.
All commissioners on Monday did share concerns about rooftop noise. They directed staff to formalize the number of events allowed and the noise mitigation measures spelled out in the final vote.
Their thoughts diverged from there.
Moyer, LaFevers and Allen largely agreed throughout the night.
This project at its core, they agreed, was a relatively small hotel development that was consistent with local policies. Other nearby hotels boast larger capacities: Sandyland Reef, both Vagabonds (formerly Motel 6s) and the Best Western, to name a few.
“It is not a large development at 36 rooms, compared to our other hotels. Just look at their size,” Allen said.
They said the project would not significantly erode views. The old train station, torn down in the 1960s to build what is now Parking Lot #3, was taller and closer to Linden Avenue than the inn would be, though the old depot building was about half as long from east to west. The warehouses across the street are also taller and more than 13 times bigger.
They did note that those at the end of Elm Avenue would experience higher levels of traffic, given Parking Lot #4’s swap to one-way traffic.
But that new parking lot may be helpful to the Beach Neighborhood and give both residents and their visitors some extra parking, they said. It should also help with drainage issues on the parcel.
Benefield — appearing via Zoom, citing a medical issue — was the sole holdout.
“I want to be clear about the basis of my decision. This is not about personal preference or the level of public support or opposition,” she said. “Our responsibility is to determine whether this project as proposed, in this location and on the record before us, satisfies the findings requirement for approval… I do not believe those findings can be made.”
She said the project was “not simply a 36-room hotel,” referencing the restaurant and associated events and activities, and called the one-way circulation in Parking Lot #4 a “travesty” for Elm Street.
She also disagreed that the project protects public views and city character.
“I do not believe we can never have a hotel,” she said. “But (the current project) just isn’t compatible to me with the neighboring community.”
Editor’s Note: This article was updated to include additional information about the old train depot.
