Commentary: Woodside offensive to Scotts Valley standards

On Wednesday, Jan. 19, the City Council will be discussing the Woodside project, one that I believe strays way too far from the established standards of our community.
I’ve been on the City Council since 1996, and to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has a development brought us so little that will cost us so much. In a nutshell, on a commercially zoned parcel, Woodside calls for 51 single-family homes packed into a space that would haunt Scotts Valley for years to come. Embedded its 17-plus exceptions to our zoning rules are inadequate parking, endless easement schemes, poorly designed streets, setbacks that are laughable and the list goes on, to the extent that demands the following question: When do “exceptions” become “violations?”
Why should we approve a residential project that doesn’t have room for sidewalks? Why should we approve a project so dense that it puts Skypark-sized homes on lots only 60 percent as large as those in Skypark? Why should we approve a project with streets so narrow there’s no street parking? Why should we approve a project so jam-packed that there’s no room for driveways? And, above all, why should we approve a project that the Scotts Valley Police Department opposes because of its obviously inadequate parking?
But there is more. The project transforms our most viable commercial property on Scotts Valley Drive into a giveaway to a developer, while getting very little in return. The lifeblood of our city’s revenue is sales tax. When that is diminished, we all suffer.
One of the main arguments by the proponents is that, because nothing has been built on this site, we have to do something — anything. I believe they have it wrong. At the most recent meeting, in response to that flawed analysis, I asked if any of the council members had seen the Holiday Inn Express (across from this proposal) coming. It dropped into our laps, and as a result, once completed, will have a very positive impact on our revenue stream. I believe the same will happen with this parcel.
The most logical revenue argument by supporters extolled the redevelopment agency money that Woodside would engender. That thinking, however, was dealt a blow this week, when Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget called for eliminating RDAs all together. Besides, by that logic, we should allow every parcel in town to be crammed with as much maximum-density development as possible (and if our longtime building and community standards don’t allow that, then the standards have to go).
At the most recent council meeting, points had been made and staff reports delivered, and the council was set to vote. Councilwoman Stephany Aguilar made a motion, seconded by Donna Lind, and I believe this agenda item was destined to pass. But destiny is a funny thing, and by a whisper of fate, the clock struck 11 p.m., and that allowed Councilman Jim Reed and I to vote to continue the debate and stave off a rush to judgment. This continuance is so important, because it allows our citizens the chance to honestly debate this matter.
I speak about this project with passion, because both on an intellectual and emotional level, I am offended by this project. I’m offended that some would settle for so little and agree to lower, questionable standards, all so the Woodside developer can make a profit. I’m offended that the development standards this city has had for decades were on the verge of being cast aside so carelessly at our previous meeting.
I believe that the people of Scotts Valley are not looking for rationalizations, fuzzy numbers and questionable benefits, but for the one thing that Woodside does not provide: quality. Until that element is introduced and respected, Woodside is destined for failure.
Randy Johnson is a member of the Scotts Valley City Council.