Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capitola Mall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Capitola planning commission advances but continues Capitol Mall zoning code amendments after broad public debate
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed zoning changes and new objective design standards for the Capitola Mall block — including tiered incentives, height and density rules, street and open‑space standards, and parking and facade requirements. Public commenters and the developer disagreed on minimum retail, sidewalk widths, and facade prescriptions. The commission continued the item to Jan. 29 for further analysis, including a staff feasibility review of a possible tier 3 with increased hotel and retail.
The Capitola Planning Commission spent the bulk of its Dec. 4 meeting reviewing proposed zoning amendments and draft objective design standards intended to guide redevelopment of the Capitola Mall property.
Staff framed the effort as the next step in a long‑running mall planning process (work beginning 2010; updates in 2013, 2018, 2022 and the 2024 housing element). Consultant Ben Noble described the proposal as a two‑tier approach that establishes objective, measurable standards for redevelopment across the mall block and creates incentives for mixed‑use projects. Key features discussed included height and density allowances (tier 1 and tier 2), a 20% affordable housing requirement tied to state law, a proposed tier‑2 commercial minimum (staff proposed 40,000 square feet; the developer suggested 25,000), a perimeter zone (120 feet) around the mall, block length and internal street connectivity (maximum block length 450 feet), minimum pedestrian‑realm dimensions, and public open‑space minimums for large projects.
Developers, neighbors and advocates submitted and read comments. Grama Sonnenfeld of Santa Cruz EMB told the commission the reduction in density on certain non‑housing element parcels “is clearly a down‑zoning” and asked for a no‑net‑loss analysis. Developer Merlone Geier representatives (Jameis William) and project architect (Ryan Call on Zoom) supported objective standards but pushed back on some prescriptive elements: Jameis William said, “I think 25,000 square feet is the right amount there for a minimum,” arguing 40,000 may be too large to be feasible. He and other developer speakers urged flexibility on internal private drives versus public streets and cautioned against standards that could render future hotel prototypes infeasible.
Public commenters raised concerns about traffic and parking (Keith Kiela noted potential impacts if the site ultimately yields more than 1,100 housing units), building setbacks and shading (Terry Thomas), and local hiring/apprenticeship commitments (Brian Shields of Carpenter’s Local 646 asked that developers consider local labor and living wages). Several commenters urged more publicly usable open space and clarity on whether private open spaces (for residents) or rooftop decks could count toward incentives.
Commission discussion focused on balancing objective, measurable standards with design flexibility for a site with multiple owners. Commissioners debated specific numeric thresholds: sidewalk and building frontage minimums (internal pedestrian clear path and landscape/furniture zones), ground‑floor transparency for residential uses (developer suggested 28–32% rather than 50%), finished‑floor elevation for ground‑floor residences (staff proposed 2–4 ft for privacy; several commissioners suggested removing a strict minimum), and massing and facade modulation rules that require distinct facade identities for long buildings. Several commissioners urged staff to examine narrower sidewalk/building‑frontage combinations that still protect residents from 75–85‑foot buildings.
On fiscal questions, one commissioner asked staff and the developer to analyze a potential tier 3 that would offer stronger incentives — higher hotel room counts and larger minimum retail footprints — to improve the city’s long‑term revenue outlook. Commissioners were split on prescribing large retail minimums; some warned that overly large retail requirements can leave ground‑floor space vacant; others argued the city should pursue arrangements that avoid an early net revenue loss.
After extensive public comment and deliberation, the commission voted unanimously to continue the Capitola Mall zoning and objective standards item to a special meeting on Jan. 29 so staff and consultants can return with revised draft language, visual examples of open‑space sizing and sidewalks, and feasibility analysis of the requested tier 3 options.
