[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6300592,"mediaKeyId","2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579","parentId",2492932,"title","Capitola planning commission asks staff to refine multifamily zoning proposals, consult legal and return with revisions","audioSeconds",6760,"startMs",942000,"endMs",7702000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579&start=942&end=7702","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579/thumbnail_942000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6300592/Capitola-City/Santa-Cruz-County/California/Capitola-planning-commission-asks-staff-to-refine-multifamily-zoning-proposals-consult-legal-and-return-with-revisions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6300592-effc5acf4fabafc33ae5c76906a4b925/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143442&Signature=EBzbW9BgwiKnqe-kWc5nHA9-NStvMWA1CrrV~Fbkqx5iRDw5o7fReNfNkdKQVTBwBn3sdS21tRXAyPGt1s7-JgzqGiytu6-eQBJuaMEvk~DeISWY5r6UNLFntcQhsDnPbbWttrwFcUl5hzE9J9WC47Ahftrg2gcjy~HH1hU7zuZhelFRA24p-InP~JkGvP~97N6TN7oT4U-0rOlQ3weJyRhuroe71VxP5BYP2jyGqaIEU9yPyYzAffSW62hZO7fjAruD42NkPZOrzXWtoYAh3dJTk90WA0J8xyw8-5FBS4MO31K8QHaB3Qmd2El5H0Qn0Jf22Rid3G-MGn4qxvW-Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Capitola, California","date","2025-03-04T04:27:55Z","article","Capitola Planning Commission members on March 3 received an update on proposed amendments to the city's residential multifamily (RM) zoning and directed staff to review public comments, consult the city attorney and return with a draft ordinance and formal rezoning hearing with mailed notice.

The work session centered on Program 1.6 of the city's adopted housing element, the consultant Ben Noble told the commission, a program that calls on the city to \"review and revise as appropriate requirements such as the minimum unit size, setbacks, parking requirements, and height restrictions to ensure they are necessary and pertinent and do not pose constraints on the development of housing.\" Noble said staff had developed a map identifying seven RM \"housing opportunity areas\" and draft development standards that would accommodate up to 30 dwelling units per acre (with 40 units per acre previously considered).

Why it matters: the City must keep its housing element certified by the state's housing agency to avoid penalties that can include the loss of state grants or limits on local approval authority. Commissioners stressed that any changes must both address state requirements and respond to neighborhood impacts.

Staff and consultant presentation
Ben Noble, the city's consultant on the zoning amendments, summarized past work: nine meetings in 2024 addressing housing element implementation, including three focused on RM zones. He said the city currently divides RM into three subzones ' RML, RMM and RMH ' allowing about 10, 15 and 20 dwelling units per acre respectively. \"This includes assessing the maximum density allowed in the RML and RMM zones to determine if higher densities can help facilitate multifamily development in the city,\" Noble said.

Using criteria that included ownership patterns, physical suitability, financial feasibility and neighborhood compatibility, staff narrowed an initial list of about 37 candidate properties to seven RM areas that, in staff's view, are more likely to be realistically redevelopable and where increasing allowed density might meaningfully change development potential. Staff also proposed objective development standards intended to address resident concerns about massing, usable open space and building materials.

Public comment and major concerns
More than a dozen residents spoke during public comment. David Fox, a resident since 1977 and a retired builder, urged the commission to consider zoning tools that require a portion of new units be affordable: \"...we're gonna let you have this density, but you're gonna put 40% low income on them,\" he said, urging the commission to examine options that preserve affordability when upzoning.

Other recurring themes from residents included:
- Traffic and parking impacts, particularly on Park Avenue and nearby streets.
- Neighborhood compatibility and building heights next to single-family homes (Turner Lane and adjacent neighborhoods were cited repeatedly).
- Concerns about outreach and notice; several speakers said mailed notices or larger outreach would reach more neighbors than postcards or online postings.
- Requests for phased redevelopment to reduce displacement and construction impacts on existing residents.

Janine Roth, representing Santa Cruz EMB, urged the commission not to cap the proposal at 30 units per acre and to return the staff proposal that included both 30- and 40-unit options. \"Program 1.6 is a constraint reduction program,\" Roth said, asking commissioners to direct staff to pursue the higher-density option as well.

Commissioner deliberations and direction to staff
Commissioners described the issue as a balancing act between meeting state housing law obligations and protecting neighborhood character. Several commissioners said they wanted to preserve objective development standards (daylight plane, setbacks, landscape/open-space minimums and parking requirements) so redevelopment would include usable open space and not create sudden, outsized structures next to single-family homes.

On specifics, commissioners expressed mixed views on the draft densities for individual sites. Some commissioners supported allowing higher density on transportation-oriented or commercially adjacent sites (for example, the Landings at Capitola), noting those locations would better absorb added units. Others expressed caution about raising densities on sites directly adjacent to single-family neighborhoods or where transit connections are weak (for example, the 600 Park Avenue site).

Formal direction and next steps
The commission did not adopt any ordinance or rezone at this meeting. Instead commissioners directed staff to:
- Review and respond to the public letters and workshop comments received in recent days;
- Consult with the city attorney on legal questions about the chosen site-selection criteria and whether selectively applying new RM subzones complies with state housing-element law;
- Return to the Planning Commission with a revised proposal and a recommended ordinance and zoning-map changes for a noticed public hearing;
- When the matter is scheduled as a rezoning, use mailed notices (green cards) to directly notify adjacent property owners and residents; and
- Continue outreach to housing advocates and other stakeholders.

Staff said the next meeting will include additional legal review and any adjustments recommended after that review. Staff also noted that the city's housing element previously identified a sites inventory that staff said would meet the state target and that the Capitola Mall site remains a major source of potential capacity.

Community context and caveats
Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized two caveats: first, the city must remain in compliance with state housing-element law and maintain its certification; second, any changes must rely on objective standards and findings. Staff said some nonconforming properties that already have higher built densities could be addressed by code language that allows redevelopment at their built density without rezoning.

The commission scheduled follow-up work rather than a final decision, and staff will return after legal review and additional outreach.

Ending
The commission's action was procedural: no zone changes were approved at the March 3 meeting. Members asked staff to bring back a draft ordinance and to increase direct notice to neighbors before any formal rezoning hearing.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Capitola Planning Commission 03/03/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Capitola Planning Commission members on March 3 received an update on proposed amendments to the city's residential multifamily (RM) zoning and directed staff to review public comments, consult the city attorney and return with a draft ordinance and formal rezoning hearing with mailed notice.","taxTitle","Capitola City, Santa Cruz County, California","taxId",68972,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6300578,"Planning commission approves consent calendar",126,740000,866000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579&start=740&end=866","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579/thumbnail_740000.jpg","/articles/6300578/Capitola-City/Santa-Cruz-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-consent-calendar","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6300578-17b04272ad5467adf992d02a0b90fcfc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143442&Signature=jzdWgqY-rzuSxvu7~B~Bc55XDAXENBCY~L0IXUjHhMZQ87Qz8qkCJQW1B~dhytCzaQMAT-VZhcpSpgWIz2F9aieSyrwIhw7jyy1KYxAvml6Dl4WDOxlRSiLzfQhasZHIbX08vkmNrRIcTUCNtLqJh8Qo~ZnanvqTEed8p3rRaReLSVoWUQaxe6ojtcEbtoaEk6qJaQNh3z6Vfkv3puO0j8fUr8eWJ5x2zBKDNxOPrBmKSe0J-TP2DGt5cUQ84mBUR0Gu9nUPr4JejYdVFOJMpRTDQi-0nf23Z2dBR~ozelUb2QHNSb8G7Ai38A2W57awV66kZQQGXJteJ6ctEYNxPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Capitola Planning Commission unanimously approved the consent calendar at its March 3 meeting.

Staff said additional materials were provided for agenda item 6A (the multifamily zoning discussion) and one email had been printed and distributed to staff and commissioners. No items were pulled from the consent calendar for separate discussion; Commissioner Que moved to approve and the motion was seconded. The roll-call vote recorded \"aye\" from Commissioner Que, Commissioner Westman, Vice Chair Christensen and Chair Estee.

Ending
The approved consent calendar cleared routine matters for the commission to proceed to public hearings.
","The commission approved the consent calendar by unanimous vote. Staff noted additional materials were received for item 6A (multifamily zoning).",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6300583,"Planning commission approves wine-tasting room at 309 Capitola Avenue",456,4602000,5058000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579&start=4602&end=5058","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2492932-9885362b418b04ecc9fa2bca4eaee579/thumbnail_4602000.jpg","/articles/6300583/Capitola-City/Santa-Cruz-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-wine-tasting-room-at-309-Capitola-Avenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6300583-1eeda7f779e76bcca6dfa4fde043574c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143442&Signature=m0XJgkzQJNlpNi~6kPeue1jPbW41382HzFvvk34yyfGKiWwKO15TKCt8lGQW0U8mFrModFBPkHQjbW4NRj~TpHZcoqt00tUxZWmB4IyovlWoeVsUF9aBJZ2sF0SfQwq~b1FXru9nund-60fNnTHJPujlPkqfxKOSva5yAM8dJloe7v1T-noEBjrBWKu7akpYlyoIcJ340vbjIbQldcW8ykv~Chv6iBW7ocHymJ~drsx4B6DOIQPWIXG~iUNr4aK41-2ieV6vbCNQ1kDzI3sTP~OhoA3StbFO9cZe2wpeokLe84YGH-~AEZeAac5w7oj9FaZnxMjE4JkLUfKC-T0YUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Capitola Planning Commission on March 3 approved a conditional use permit and sign permit allowing a wine-tasting room and retail outlet at 309 Capitola Avenue.

The commission voted to approve the permit after a staff presentation and a brief statement from the applicants, Joseph and Sam Miller, who said they operate a winery on the city's West Side and seek a small tasting-and-retail space in the village.

Staff planner Brian Fraylik described the proposal as a small tenant space of about 1,100 square feet with the customer/tasting area limited to roughly 120 square feet under the applicant's plan (the code allows up to 160 square feet for the type of service proposed). Fraylik said the business intends to operate primarily as a pick-up and tasting location tied to a wine-subscription model; the applicants plan loose furniture, a modular bar and rack storage and did not propose structural changes requiring building permits at this time.

Applicant Joseph Miller told the commission the tasting room is intended to promote the winery and draw visitors to Capitola: \"We've been looking literally for years for a good site for a tasting room and we think 309 Capitola is the jackpot,\" he said, noting that many of his customers travel to the area and patronize local restaurants and shops.

The Planning Commission made the five standard findings required for a conditional use permit and approved the use and sign permit with the conditions recommended in staff's report, including adherence to the village-zone sign standards, limits on customer-floor area consistent with the application and compliance with building and fire codes if interior alterations trigger permits.

Vote and next steps
The motion to approve was made and seconded during the meeting; the roll-call vote was recorded as: Commissioner Que, aye; Commissioner Westman, aye; Vice Chair Christensen, aye; Chair Estee, aye. The permit is approved and the applicants may proceed with any required building permits and licensing (the applicants described pursuing a duplicate Type 02 license associated with their winery).

Ending
The tasting room is expected to occupy an existing storefront near the California Avenue and Capitola Avenue intersection. Staff will monitor any subsequent building-permit submittals and ensure the approved conditions are met prior to operation.
","The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and sign permit allowing a wine-tasting room and retail outlet at 309 Capitola Ave with standard conditions; the vote was unanimous.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Capitola planning commission asks staff to refine multifamily zoning proposals, consult legal and return with revisions

Planning commission approves consent calendar

Planning commission approves wine-tasting room at 309 Capitola Avenue