CAPITOLA — Wrong place, wrong size, wrong traffic congestion mitigations, wrong preparation for sea-level rise and flooding.
These criticisms and more comprised the overwhelming feedback heard Thursday on Swenson Builder’s proposed five-story 88-room hotel project proposed for Capitola Village. The developer was appearing before the Capitola City Council for a concept-level review of its 120 Monterey Ave. proposal, similar to a public meeting held with the city Planning Commission early this month.
The council made no decisions, as a final project application is not expected until after the California Coastal Commission approves the city’s recently updated zoning codes, which provide opportunities for a larger development on the beach-area project. Councilwoman Yvette Brooks asked a company representative to consider letting the city choose an economic analyst to assess the proposed project’s feasibility and urged the company to consider other alternatives for its nearly-an-acre property. Councilman Sam Storey urged Swenson to veer from the Spanish revival design, move all parking off-site and to come up with greater public benefits in order to qualify for higher-density project allowances, among other suggestions.
Councilwoman Kristen Petersen, who lives within 500 feet of the property, recused herself from the discussion.
According to the Plan?
After hearing from nearly 30 public speakers, Councilman Ed Bottorff said it was important for the city to take a look at the project, for reasons beyond and including “financial certainty” for city coffers. He added that the city itself does not build homes, car lots or hotels, relying instead on developers who are “willing to take a risk to come in and do something.”
“I feel like there’s an abundance of fear in the room. I didn’t hear a lot of things about how we could build the hotel,” Bottorff said. “It was more focused on why we shouldn’t build a hotel.”
Along a similar vein, City Planning Commissioner Peter Wilk wrote to the council ahead of the meeting, questioning the negative public feedback on a project he said aligned with the city’s general plan goals.
“This Thursday, please either defend the general plan or provide solid reasons why it has become obsolete,” Wilk wrote. “As a planning commissioner, I need to know if I should continue to use the general plan for needed guidance.”
The two officials, however, were among the minority of public opinion on the project.
Community Airs Concerns
City resident Dave Fox said it was his understanding that Swenson did not plan to run the hotel, but to build a project that would attract a hotel operator.
“I can totally understand that they want the biggest hotel they can because they get the best lease back from that management company,” Fox said. “But there are a ton of boutique hotels in the state of California that are doing financially very well, and I think that they could cut this thing back to about 40 units and go with one of those managers, rather than a large manager.”
Resident Amie Forest, calling the hotel project “ginormous,” said she supported a smaller hotel without an on-site underground parking garage.
“Climate change is looming over us, we are going to have sea-level rise and I think it’s just pie in the sky to put underground parking,” Forest said. “I think that’s going to be a disaster. Just saying, ‘Oh, we’ll deal with that and we’ll do our best’ is just not enough.”
