Letter: Development has too many flaws

EDITOR,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Woodside housing development on Scotts Valley Drive. I do not understand why the planning commission approved this plan, with all its flaws. I am hoping the City Council will not allow this development in its present incarnation. I understand that it was a much larger “package” and has been downsized from original plans, but it still needs many modifications.
There are many office and commercial vacancies in Scotts Valley. Why would we want three more office and retail buildings to be built? We are trying to build up an actual Town Center, yet here we are, poised to approve one more “strip mall” type of commerce, driving visitors away from the very Town Center we are trying to build.
We need more rental apartments and rental houses. We need housing for single people and older people. We do not need 51 homes to be sold for over $500,000. “Renting” is not a dirty word. For over 10 years, I commuted to San Jose to work. That’s where the jobs are! The Highway 17 bus goes right along Scotts Valley Drive. This would be an ideal location for more apartments for working people.
One more thing: Bill Brooks couldn’t sell his Santa Cruz condominiums and has had to rent them. He can’t even find tenants for all the units (on North Pacific). He hasn’t proceeded with his plans to build townhouses next to the transit station here. So, fellow residents of Scotts Valley, do you think that the Woodside Project is really good for Scotts Valley? Or just for a developer named Jim Sullivan?