Capitola kicks off fast‑track mall zoning update; council wants code to allow up to 75‑foot redevelopment

City planning staff and consultants presented the kickoff for a rapid zoning code update Oct. 2 intended to implement the Capitola Housing Element’s mall redevelopment program, proposing zoning and objective standards that would allow mid‑rise redevelopment on the Mall block and aim to accommodate the housing sites inventory required by state law.

The consultants said the city must ensure the mall zoning can reasonably accommodate up to about 1,700–1,800 dwelling units across the block identified in the housing element and recommended objective standards tailored to the mall site for building massing, ground‑floor frontage, publicly accessible open space, parking typologies and internal street connections. Staff and consultants repeatedly emphasized the need for objective, design‑based rules that meet state requirements for predictability so projects that comply can proceed under streamlined or “by‑right” avenues where applicable.

Ben Noble, the city’s planning consultant, summarized the statutory background and local targets: the municipal housing element must account for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2023–2031 — 1,336 units overall in the city — and the city’s sites inventory for the mall was adjusted to show capacity up to roughly 1,700–1,777 units to provide the state‑required buffer.

Noble and other staff framed Program 1.7 of the housing element as the driver: among other items it calls for policies that facilitate shopping‑center redevelopment, allow up to 75 feet in height for mall redevelopment, remove parking garages from FAR calculations for specific redevelopment, and establish objective development standards to encourage cohesive mixed‑use redevelopment.

Ryan Call, an architect with Urban Field Studio, walked commissioners through design considerations for mid‑rise projects, including strategies to break long facades into smaller compositional elements, use modulation and material contrast to reduce perceived mass, and ensure ground‑floor activation even when residential uses predominate. Call warned objective rules should avoid overly prescriptive technical minutiae that produce repetitive facades.

City staff said the amendments will touch multiple code chapters (notably Chapters 17.24, 17.82 and 17.88), the general plan land‑use element and parking standards, and will include outreach: a community meeting is scheduled Oct. 8 at New Brighton Middle School, and staff proposed special Planning Commission meetings on Oct. 30 and Nov. 19 to meet a December adoption timeline.

Public speakers and commissioners raised economic and infrastructure concerns. Ralph Assonenfeld, a land‑use consultant, urged the commission to consider higher FAR (floor‑area‑ratio) and lower parking minimums to make projects financially feasible. Commissioners and members of the public pressed for clarity on how new development would support city revenues through transient‑occupancy tax (hotel) and larger retail options, and asked staff to include economic analysis in the work program. City staff confirmed a modest budget for economic analysis is part of the project and that staff will coordinate timing with consultants.

Representatives of Merlone‑Geyer (the major mall landowner) attended and said the zoning rewrite is a precursor to a much larger redevelopment planning process; Merlone‑Geyer’s representative said the firm expects to engage in subsequent, detailed planning and design reviews with the city. Jamis (Merlone‑Geyer representative) told commissioners, "this process is definitely a precursor to a bigger planning process that will be much more involved." The developer reiterated that lease and leasehold constraints (for example, long‑term leases for some anchor stores) mean full site buildout will be phased and must resolve multiple property‑owner agreements before comprehensive redevelopment can occur.

Commissioners gave preliminary feedback on priorities: (1) protecting and incentivizing ground‑floor activation and publicly accessible gathering spaces; (2) avoiding monolithic massing through modulation and varied façades; (3) ensuring internal circulation and connectivity with new block patterns and mid‑block pedestrian connections; and (4) taking economic and infrastructure impacts — traffic, parking and public utilities — into account. Staff said they will return with draft code language and objective standards for a November public hearing and will assess whether any statutory streamlining (e.g., recent CEQA/housing law provisions) apply.

No formal commission action was required at the work session; staff will incorporate commissioner and public feedback into draft zoning language and objective standards that will be noticed for public hearing this fall.