Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Capitola amends multifamily rezoning rules, adds rear‑setback protection after public outcry about 600 Park
Summary
The City Council voted to amend proposed multifamily zoning changes by adding language allowing the Planning Commission to require increased rear setbacks when front setbacks are reduced, a change that passed 3–2 after hours of public comment about impacts on single‑family neighborhoods and a high‑profile parcel at 600 Park Avenue.
Capitola — After extensive public comment and detailed staff presentations about new multifamily subzones, the Capitola City Council voted to add a protective setback amendment to its proposed rezoning changes for multifamily areas.
Lede: The council approved a motion to add language to the proposed RM (residential multifamily) standards stating that if a reduced front setback is approved, the Planning Commission may require a larger rear setback to protect adjacent single‑family properties. The motion passed 3–2 on a roll call recorded in the meeting.
Why it matters: The amendments implement portions of the city’s 2024 housing element by creating two new RM subzones — RM30 (up to 30 dwelling units/acre) and RM40 (up to 40 dwelling units/acre) — and adjusting development standards the staff said are required to make those densities feasible. Neighbors warned the changes could allow tall multi‑story buildings next to single‑family backyards, specifically flagging 600 Park Avenue as a sensitive site.
What staff proposed: Planning consultant Ben Noble described the changes to council: “the proposed amendments would create 2 new RM sub zones. 1 that would allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre, RM 30. And a second that would allow up to 40 dwelling units per acre, RM 40.” The proposed map applies the new subzones to seven areas around the city and modifies standards for height, coverage and setbacks to allow the higher density.
Public concerns and examples: Dozens of residents testified. Neighbors of 600 Park Avenue said the proposal could put 36‑foot buildings next to their backyards, remove sunlight and privacy, and increase parking and traffic pressure. As one resident said in public comment: “We're deeply concerned about the negative impacts due to rezoning to 30 dwelling units per acre.” A former architect urged a “site specific solution,” and multiple speakers asked that affordable existing units be protected if redevelopment occurs.
State law and ADUs: Staff also recommended text changes to the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules to conform with recent state ADU law and a comment letter from HCD. Staff noted HCD asked for clarifications, including rules about historic resources and homeowners‑association approvals; the proposed ADU amendments would also update the allowed number of detached ADUs on multifamily properties to match state law.
Council action: During deliberations councilmembers debated balancing state deadlines and local impacts. A motion to add language giving the Planning Commission authority to require expanded rear setbacks if front setbacks are reduced carried on a 3–2 vote (Council member Jensen recorded as voting no; Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Morgan and Mayor Clark recorded as yes).
Next steps: Staff indicated that the amendments will be prepared as ordinance language, submitted to the Coastal Commission for local coastal program certification, and return to Planning Commission and Council as required. Staff also said the city will continue the fiscal and environmental analysis required for multifamily projects and address HCD comments on ADUs.
Ending: The council’s amendment narrows the options available to future developers by building an explicit protection for adjacent single‑family yards into the RM standards; the broader rezoning and ADU changes remain on the path to final adoption and review by state and coastal authorities.
