📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Score: 0 (0/11/0)
Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2023-2024

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

Published: August 31, 2023 20 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F10, F11

Findings and Recommendations 11 findings

F1 Page 256
While all city and county planning departments have demonstrated a good understanding of the new State housing laws and the need to facilitate more housing, the failure to do so in a timely manner has served to further decrease the availability of housing and further increase the need and cost of more housing. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Capitola has consistently updated the Capitola Municipal Code to comply with state housing law in a timely manner. With the many annual housing bills, cities and developers alike must be diligent in understanding the latest legislative changes. Even in doing so, the state Housing and Community Development Department and case law provide new interpretations and precedents. The pace of entitlements and construction of ADUs in Capitola has increased in recent years, partly due to the changes in state legislation and the City’s rapid incorporation of those changes into the daily narrative and development entitlement decisions. For example, for new ADU laws that came into effect on Jan 1,2020, Capitola updated the ordinance by March of 2020. Capitola updated the ordinance again in 2022 due to additional modifications in ADU law. The City’s up-to-date understanding of housing legislation does and will continue to facilitate housing production. The City will continue to remain diligent in staying knowledgeable about the latest legislative changes, interpretations, and case law. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 249
No recommendations for this finding
F2 Page 257
Updated the ADU ordinance (2020 and 2022)
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Page 247
, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC to develop housing sites that are affordable for UCSC students and essential workers. (F2) __ 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: To the extent that UCSC has projects within the County’s unincorporated areas requiring the County’s participation through its permitting or land use regulatory roles, the County will work with UCSC as it would any other applicant. For example, there is a proposed 624-bed housing complex being jointly developed by UCSC and Cabrillo College on Cabrillo’s Aptos campus, and the County would be happy to assist those partners through the regulatory process should the proposal move forward. Given the disparate impacts of the ongoing housing crisis on lower-income families, any future funding the County might have for affordable housing would be applied consistent with the County’s Strategic Plan and equity goals. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3 Page 257
Created ADU guidance document (2022)
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
Page 246
, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low-income housing for workers in the County, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6) _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: County staff regularly meet with property owners, interested developers, employers, other public agencies, and non-profit housing providers to provide information on zoning, procedures, regulations, affordable housing programs, and funding opportunities that pertain to new development within the unincorporated areas. This is a typical service and is likely provided in all county jurisdictions as well. As noted in
F4 Page 257
Capitola has made little progress towards achieving housing goals, particularly for low income housing. Although the City identified sites for mixed use developments, they have made little progress towards developing those sites. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Capitola has made great progress towards achieving housing goals, but has made little progress in developing low-income sites in the current housing cycle. In terms of housing goals, Capitola had made great progress to enable more housing development citywide. Completed planning projects include: 1. Complete overhaul of Zoning Code to remove barriers to housing and ensure housing could be accommodated. (2014-2020) 2. Updated the ADU ordinance (2020 and 2022) 3. Created ADU guidance document (2022) 4. Created building permit ready ADU prototype designs (2022) 5. Completed a nexus study for affordable housing (2020/2021) 6. Completed feasibility analysis for affordable housing fees (2020) 7. Updated Chapter 18.02 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (2020/2021) 8. Added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021) 9. Added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed- Use Developments (2022) The City is not responsible for developing sites as the City is not a developer. Capitola is responsible for ensuring there are adequate sites to develop housing within the City and removing barriers. However, the City recently approved a 36 unit 100% affordable development at 4401 Capitola Road. The City will continue efforts to proactively reach out to affordable housing developers to increase interest in Capitola sites. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 250 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 258
Capitola has focused primarily on streamlining the construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing. However, there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers, and there is little chance that ADUs alone can meet the housing needs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ADUs are only a small portion of the work the City had done to meet housing needs. Of the nine tasks listed below toward housing, ADUs were the focus of three. The City agrees that ADUs alone cannot meet the housing needs for the 6th cycle. Completed housing projects: 1. Complete overhaul of Zoning Code to remove barriers to housing and ensure housing could be accommodated. (2014-2020) 2. Updated the ADU ordinance (2020 and 2022) 3. Created ADU guidance document (2022) 4. Created building permit ready ADU prototype designs (2022) 5. Completed a nexus study for affordable housing (2020/2021) 6. Completed feasibility analysis for affordable housing fees (2020) 7. Updated Chapter 18.02 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (2020/2021) 8. Added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021) 9. Added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed- Use Developments (2022) The City agrees there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers. However, the City recently approved a 36 unit 100% affordable development at 4401 Capitola Road and included a condition of approval for local worker preference. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 251
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 241
Capitola and the County of Santa Cruz need to work together to facilitate significant housing in the mid-county area where a large percentage of jobs are located. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Board of Supervisors agrees that housing located near job centers and transportation corridors is key to future sustainable urban development. Coordination among the various local jurisdictions and regional agencies within the county is important to making progress on the housing crisis. The planning directors meet quarterly, and further informal communications frequently occur. Coordination also occurs in the regular bi-monthly meetings of the Planning Directors Forum hosted by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), as well as in the local Continuum of Care, known as the Housing for Health Partnership, which includes representatives from all local jurisdictions. In addition to coordination among directors, other planning, and public works staff in various divisions (including housing and development review) are familiar with, and frequently reach out to their colleagues in neighboring jurisdictions when needed to coordinate on developments and other projects that require such cross-jurisdictional coordination, such as those located close to city limits, and regional infrastructure and planning efforts. Several recent examples of this include the Pippin I (built in 2018) and Pippin II (currently under construction) affordable housing development projects. Each of these projects included one parcel on unincorporated County land and one parcel in the City of Watsonville. Extensive coordination occurred between City and County staff at various stages of their development in order to get these projects funded and completed. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R11
Page 244
the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress towards identifying sites and planning for increased housing along the transportation corridors in mid-county. (F6) _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: Like all AMBAG jurisdictions, the County of Santa Cruz is developing its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which is due to the State As a part of the Housing Element update, the County must analyze its capacity to accommodate the number of housing units dictated by the State under RHNA. Where the supply of land is deficient, jurisdictions must also identify parcels for rezoning to make up the total number of units (4,634 for the County in the 6th Cycle). Together, the parcels identified for potential housing units are considered the “Housing Inventory.” On June 12, 2023, the County released its draft Housing Element and Housing Inventory for public review, thereby beginning the process of review and adoption of the Housing Element in 2023. The Housing Element (as well as the Built Environment Element of the General Plan) contain policies and programs that give clear preference for locating housing in infill areas within the existing Urban Services Line and along transportation corridors. The location of properties in the Housing Inventory focuses on potential development in these areas as well. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 237
R13
Page 246
, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low-income housing for workers in the County, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6) _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: County staff regularly meet with property owners, interested developers, employers, other public agencies, and non-profit housing providers to provide information on zoning, procedures, regulations, affordable housing programs, and funding opportunities that pertain to new development within the unincorporated areas. This is a typical service and is likely provided in all county jurisdictions as well. As noted in
F7 Page 260
The City of Capitola has made little progress towards facilitating the development of the Capitola Mall as a mixed-use project which could accommodate both business and housing. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): In the recent Zoning Code update, Chapter 17.88: Incentives for Community Benefits was added providing incentives of additional height and floor area ratio on the mall site. In 2019, the mall owner submitted an application for a mixed-use development which would accommodate 637 new residential units along with commercial uses. During the conceptual review, the applicant received favorable feedback from Planning Commission and City Council. Ultimately, the applicant withdrew the application in the summer of 2020 due to the pandemic. Capitola made progress with the adoption of the new Incentives for Community Benefits Zoning as there are now incentives in place for increased height and floor area, combined with underlying zoning that has no density limit. However, the Capitola Mall is comprised of multiple parcels, owned by seven different entities. These seven property owners must all agree on any significant development on the Mall site. Unanimous agreement among these property owners has been a challenge for decades. While the City has created incentives to facilitate development, and helped facilitate discussions among those property owners, the City is not able to compel private property owners to redevelop Capitola Mall. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 257
Added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021)
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 257
Added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed- Use Developments (2022) The City is not responsible for developing sites as the City is not a developer. Capitola is responsible for ensuring there are adequate sites to develop housing within the City and removing barriers. However, the City recently approved a 36 unit 100% affordable development at 4401 Capitola Road. The City will continue efforts to proactively reach out to affordable housing developers to increase interest in Capitola sites. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 250 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury F5. Capitola has focused primarily on streamlining the construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing. However, there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers, and there is little chance that ADUs alone can meet the housing needs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ADUs are only a small portion of the work the City had done to meet housing needs. Of the nine tasks listed below toward housing, ADUs were the focus of three. The City agrees that ADUs alone cannot meet the housing needs for the 6th cycle. Completed housing projects:
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 242
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): Many California jurisdictions including the County that fund affordable housing projects or administer affordable housing programs, such as inclusionary or “below market-rate” programs, provide general preferences to prospective applicants who live and/or work in their locality. State and federal fair housing laws, as well as conditions attached to State and federal subsidies, limit the extent to which these preferences can be very narrowly tailored to provide priority preferences to local workers only, as opposed to those who may live locally but work elsewhere, and/or to those who work versus those who may be retired, unemployed, or unable to work due to disabilities or other reasons. The reasons are that such preferences could create a “disparate impact” on certain protected groups who may be less likely to be in the group receiving the preference, and thus the preference limits their access to fair housing, which would violate the law. Most local jurisdictions including the County generally provide legally allowable preferences in their local affordable housing projects and programs for those who live or work in the County. This sometimes include priorities for additional special needs groups, such as for those displaced by recent disasters, or for those who are homeless, households with a disability, seniors, homeless families, or other special needs group. Furthermore, if a project is being built by an employer specifically for its employees, then it does not violate fair housing law to limit those units to the specified group of employees. Examples include housing for farmworkers, or local school districts building housing for their employees. The County’s inclusionary housing program (also known as a below-market rate housing program), established through the 1978 voter initiative called “Measure J”, does generally limit the eligibility to access these affordable housing units entirely to applicants who live or work within the county. The County owns many parcels throughout the unincorporated area and is actively studying the potential for public-sector employee housing on several of its properties. Employers of various types may also develop housing for their employees on any other types of property they own that allows housing development, which includes residential zones and commercial mixed-use zones (C1, C2, PA, and/or RF). 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 235
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
Page 245
the County of Santa Cruz should develop clear, measurable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low-income housing. (F12) _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: Please see response to F12 above. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13 Page 243
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): Please see response to F6. In addition, the County has forged strong partnerships with various non-profit affordable housing developers and other public agencies, including local cities in some cases, and/or the countywide Housing Authority, resulting in the construction of many affordable housing developments over the past 40 or more years. Some of the more recently built projects include Pippin Orchards Phases I and II in the Watsonville area, Aptos Blue and Canterbury Park in Aptos, and St. Stephens, 1520 Capitola Road (Bienestar Plaza), and Rodeo Creek Court in Live Oak. Where possible, the County has pursued partnerships including with local cities. However, housing is inherently a local land use issue and thus makes cross- jurisdictional coordination unfeasible in many cases. There are several regional agencies, such as the Regional Transportation Commission, that handle regional planning issues including transportation and groundwater. These agencies include representatives from each of the local jurisdictions, and staff of each of the local jurisdictions closely follow and participate in planning efforts of those regional agencies. Other regional entities that many local staff participate in, which help staff keep informed and share information on regional issues affecting housing development and housing needs, include AMBAG, the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, the Housing for Health Partnership, and Housing Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R15
Page 248
the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other 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: Planning directors throughout the county meet quarterly to discuss and share ideas on housing and other related issues. Planning staff from the various jurisdictions also collaborate through the regular AMBAG meetings and meetings of other regional bodies, as noted above in the response to F6, F13, and several of the recommendations above. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 241 Grand Jury City of Capitola Response to Report Titled "Housing Our Workers" Moss, Julia Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 12:01 PM To: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" Good Morning, Please find attached the City of Capitola’s response to the 2022-2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury report titled Housing Our Workers. This response was approved by the Capitola City Council on July 27th, 2023, as can be seen in the attached draft minutes from that meeting. Please respond to confirm receipt of this email. Thank you, Julia Moss City Clerk - City of Capitola 831.475.7300 x228 2 attachments Housing Grand Jury Response.pdf 401K Housing - Minutes from July 27th.pdf 609K 242 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City of Capitola City Council Meeting Minutes Thursday, July 27, 2023 – 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010 Mayor: Margaux Keiser Vice Mayor: Kristen Brown Council Members: Yvette Brooks, Joe Clarke, Alexander Pedersen Closed Session – 5 PM i. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) Negotiator: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City of Manager Employee Organizations: Association of Capitola Employees, Police Officers Association, Mid- Management Employees, Confidential Employees, Police Captains, and Management ii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—LIABILITY CLAIMS (Gov. Code § 54956.95) 1) Graciela Cardiel Claim against the City of Capitola iii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9) Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one case Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM 1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. In attendance: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, and Mayor Keiser. Absent: Vice Mayor Brown 2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda - None 3. Report on Closed Session – The City Council met and discussed three items on the Closed Session Agenda. No reportable action was taken. 4. Additional Materials A. Updated Attachments for Item 7F B. Correspondence Received - Item 8C (2 emails) C. Correspondence Received - Item 8E (3 emails) D. Correspondence Received - Item 8F (3 emails) 5. Oral Communications by Members of the Public - None 6. Staff / City Council Comments  Police Chief Dally reminded the public of National Night Out on August 1st from 5-7 PM.  Council Member Clarke commended the Random Acts of Capitola Kindness group for their efforts on the Depot Hill fence repair. 7. Consent Items A. City Council Meeting Minutes 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 243 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve the June 22, 2023, City Council meeting minutes. B. City Check Registers Recommended Action: Approve check registers dated June 23, 2023, and July 7, 2023. C. Liability Claim of Graciela Cardiel Recommended Action: Reject liability claim. D. Grand Jury Response – Cyber Security Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. E. Grand Jury Response – Housing our Workers Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. F. Jade Street Park Universally Accessible Playground Fundraising Partnership Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Friends of Santa Cruz County Parks for a fundraising campaign and administration of donations for the Jade Street Park Universally Accessible Playground Project; and 2) approve an administrative policy regarding the Universally Accessible Playground at Jade Street Park Donor Recognition. G. Plein Air Public Art Prize Amount Recommended Action: Approve the Art & Cultural Commission recommendation to increase the Plein Air Public Art Festival Competition prize amount from $1,500 to $1,800 for first place and from $800 to $1,000 for second place. Motion to adopt the Consent Calendar: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown 8. General Government / Public Hearings A. State Budget Update from Senator John Laird Senator John Laird provided a presentation on the State of California Budget. B. Children and Youth Bill of Rights Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Capitola Children and Youth Bill of Rights. Deputy City Clerk Westly presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included an overview of the partnership between the City and the Children’s Network and Youth Action Network. Motion to adopt the resolution adopting the Capitola Children and Youth Bill of Rights with direction to staff to research the addition of a $2,000 stipend for youth participation on City advisory boards: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown City of Capitola 244 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 C. Jade Street Park UA Playground Project Recommended Action: Approve the Final Conceptual Design for the Jade Street Park Universally Accessible (UA) Playground Project. Public Works Director Kahn and Todd from Verde Design presented the staff report. Public Comments:  Brenda, community member, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project.  Dan Hastley, County Park Friends, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project.  Lisa Duran, Capitola Aptos Rotary Member, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project. Council Member discussion included thanks for the Santa Cruz County Park Friends for their fundraising efforts, and encouragement to the community to donate to the fundraiser. Motion to approve the Final Conceptual Design: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown D. Community Center Renovation Project – Budget Update Recommended Action: 1) Receive update on external funding sources for the Community Center Renovation Project; and 2) authorize Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects in the amount of $374,000 for final design documents, bidding support, and construction administration for the Community Center Renovation Project. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included clarification on funding sources and timelines. Motion to authorize Amendment 1 to the Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects: Council Member Pedersen Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown E. Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project Preliminary Conceptual Design Recommended Action: Direct staff to prepare a final concept plan, for consideration by the City Council on August 24, 2023, for the Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project (CWEP). Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Public Comments:  Community member requested clarification on the conceptual design.  Gerry Jensen, CWET, thanked City staff and Wharf to Wharf staff for their collaboration efforts.  Skip Allen, community member, voiced concerns about enhanced lighting in the conceptual design. City of Capitola 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 245 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 Council Members expressed thanks to CWET for their efforts, an interest in the addition of a kiosk element, and additional outreach for volunteer opportunities. Direction provided to staff to prepare a Final Conceptual Design with the addition of a kiosk: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown F. Capitola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project Recommended Action: Approve the plans, specifications, and construction budget of $1,700,000 for the Capitola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project; adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023-24 budget; and authorize the Department of Public Works to advertise for construction bids. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. The City Council requested that staff provide an update on the ADA recommendations for this project and associated electrical improvements. Public Comments:  Marianne Mahern, resident, requested further consideration of ADA accommodations in the pavement plan. Motion to approve the plans, specifications, and budget for the Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project and adopt the resolution: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown G. City Council Appointments to City Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Appoint members of the public to the City of Capitola Arts and Cultural Commission and Historical Museum Board. City Clerk Moss presented the staff report. Motion to appoint Jennifer Major to the Arts and Cultural Commission to a term expiring 12/31/2024 and Brian Legakis to the Historical Museum Board to a term expiring 6/30/2024: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown 9. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 24, 2023, at 6:00 PM. ____________________________ ATTEST: Margaux Keiser, Mayor ____________________________ Julia Moss, City Clerk City of Capitola 246 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Capitola 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 247 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 . 4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 248 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Additional Recommendations 9

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.