__ Agree _x_ Partially Disagree __ Disagree Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City

F8 Page 261

The City of Capitola claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City agrees it should not be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low-income workers. However, it is a fact that Capitola has significantly less housing staff and financial resources than the City of Santa Cruz, City of Watsonville, and the County of Santa Cruz, which can make it more challenging to partner with housing developers toward construction of projects. Two new housing fund sources recently became available through the payoff of a large housing loan and the recent award from the state of PLHA funds. Capitola intends to utilize the new funding source to assist MidPen Housing with plans for a 52- unit 100% affordable project at 1098 38th Avenue. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 254 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Related Recommendations (2)

R1

Page 264

the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The 6th cycle draft housing element, as submitted to HCD, identifies more than the required parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, including low-income housing. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 257

R2

Page 265

the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City updated the Zoning Code to allow mixed-use in all commercial zones (2014- 2020); updated Chapter 18.02 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (2020/2021); added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021); and added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Developments (2022). The draft 6th cycle housing element includes many properties within Capitola’s mixed-use zoning district. These accomplishments create significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed-use businesses and housing citywide. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 258 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

F12 Page 262

While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Capitola’s inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) gives preference to local residents and workers. Within Capitola Municipal Code Section 18.02.080, the City’s inclusionary ordinance gives preferences for ownership inclusionary units to households who live or work in Capitola. Beyond the IHO, Capitola does not have requirements for prioritizing housing for local workers. However, during the review of a recent 36-unit, 100 percent affordable housing development project at 4401 Capitola Road, the project was conditioned to require local worker preference. Prior to adopting a standard for local worker preference, the City would have to do more research on applicable laws and fair housing practices. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 255

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

Page 267

the City of Capitola should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of ADUs as well as low income housing. (F12) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City cannot legally require private homeowners to hire local workers for construction of ADUs. Further, this requirement would be an impediment to housing development due to limited construction workers at the local level, and increased development costs which would make development of new housing less feasible. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 260 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

F13 Page 263

All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): While representatives from the different jurisdictions can and do regularly learn from one another and collaborate on the best ways to grow across the region, particularly when it comes to planning for and requiring increased densities in areas close to transit and other daily needs, individual projects are typically best handled by the jurisdiction in which they are located. All jurisdictions in the County regularly collaborate during the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) meetings. Senate Bill 375 set forth consistency requirements between transportation planning processes and housing planning processes. More specifically, the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) development pattern. For the Monterey Bay Area, these requirements necessitate extensive coordination between three regional transportation planning agencies, two major transit agencies, 21 local jurisdictions, two councils of government and AMBAG, the region's metropolitan planning organization. The RHNA process assigned more units to Capitola and the County of Santa Cruz due to the number of jobs in mid-county to facilitate significant housing in the mid-county area where a large percentage of jobs are located. Also, Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communications. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 256 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Related Recommendations (2)

R3

Page 266

, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. Specific development projects typically are handled by the specific jurisdiction where they are located. In terms of regional planning, all jurisdictions in the County regularly collaborate during the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) meetings. Senate Bill 375 set forth consistency requirements between transportation planning processes and housing planning processes. More specifically, the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) development pattern. For the Monterey Bay Area, these requirements necessitate extensive coordination between three regional transportation planning agencies, two major transit agencies, 21 local jurisdictions, two councils of government and AMBAG, the region's metropolitan planning organization. The regional coordination encourages housing development near transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. Also, Capitola’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element includes numerous sites along 41st Avenue due to existing transit and jobs. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 259

R5

Page 268

the City of Capitola should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As stated in R3, Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. Specific development projects typically are handled by the specific jurisdiction where they are located. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 261 Grand Jury ATTN: Civil Grand Jury Response (Housing Our Workers) Emeline Nguyen Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:46 PM To: "grandjury@scgrandjury.org" Cc: Laura Schmidt , Matt Huffaker Good afternoon Honorable Judge Cogliati and Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, We received an email that the Grand Jury report is past due. Please see the attached report that was submitted on August 15th. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you, Emeline [Quoted text hidden] 20230816_Civil Grand Jury_Housing Our Workers_V2.pdf 225K 262 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Santa Cruz City Council to Respond by August 31, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Housing Our Workers Essential Workers Need Affordable Housing! Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Housing Our Workers Published on June 2, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 263 Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed , or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses: We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated August 8, 2023. 4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati Syda.Cogliati@santacruzcourt.org and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury grandjury@scgrandjury.org. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to grandjury@scgrandjury.org. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing Our Workers Due

__ Agree _x_ Partially Disagree __ Disagree Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City

Findings and Recommendations 3 findings