Sebastopol City Council
November 15, 2022

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Meeting Date: November 15, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for a Temporary Use Permit to allow the continued temporary residential use for a 24-7 safe parking for RV (Recreational Vehicles) for two years at 845 Gravenstein Highway north (aka the “Horizon Shine” RV Village) Recommendation: Deny the Appeal, and Uphold the Approval Funding: Currently Budgeted: _______ Yes _______ No ___X__ N/A Net General Fund Cost: $0
Appellant: Zachary Imbrogno and Friends of Northwest Sebastopol Applicant/Owner: Sonoma Applied Villages (SAVS)/St Vincent De Paul (Owner) File Number: 2022-073
Address: 845 Gravenstein Hwy North
CEQA Status: Exempt
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: General Commercial
Account Code/Costs authorized in City Approved Budget (if applicable) ___AK_____ (verified by Administrative Services Department) INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE:

This is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision issued at their October 11, 2022 meeting to approve an application Temporary Use Permit to allow the continued temporary residential use for a 24-7 safe parking for RV (Recreational Vehicles) for two years at 845 Gravenstein Highway north (aka the “Horizon Shine” RV Village). The approval was appealed by Zachary Imbrogno, President, Friends of Northwest Sebastopol (FNS, or “Appellant”) on October 17, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Project Background
Horizon Shine RV Village is a temporary 24/7 safe parking program at the site for 20-22 lived-in vehicles for currently homeless persons at 845 Gravenstein Highway North, in the General Commercial zoning district. The operator, Sonoma Applied Village Services, will provide site management including sanitation, waste management, security, food access, and supportive services. Project operations and site review are more thoroughly described in the Attachments/Planning Commission Report. The project operational details were not included in the appeal.

Zoning and Project History:

The original RV Village was slated as a 12-month use (January 2022 to January 2023) when originally proposed. As such, it was classified under the definition of a Homeless Shelter (see below), as the RVs are not fully functional Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

dwelling units; communal facilities for living will be provided by SAVS; the operation will be for a limited time frame; and, the use of the site will be to accommodate persons and families who are currently homeless.

Zoning code definitions (SMC 17.08):
“Homeless shelter” means a residential facility operated by a provider which provides temporary accommodations to persons or families with low income for a period of generally not more than six months. Such use may also provide meals, counseling and other services, as well as common area for users of the facility. Such facility may have individual rooms, but is not developed with individual dwelling units.
“Temporary Use” means a non-permanent use on a site, which can events, but also temporary storage yards, trailers, and similar uses as defined by the Planning Director. “Temporary care unit” means a manufactured home, recreational vehicle, or park trailer used as a temporary dwelling unit associated with providing care to one or more persons due to an age-related, health, or medical condition
Temporary Uses are regulated by SMC 17.430 – Temporary Use Permits (full code section:
https://sebastopol.municipal.codes/SMC/17.430) , with uses longer than six months require a Planning Commission approval at a public hearing, and require findings similar to that of a permanent Conditional Use Permit, as will be discussed below. A Temporary Use Permit requires the same findings that would be required for any use that would require a Use Permit from the City for the zone, and a higher level of review than for affordable housing projects and homeless shelters, both of which are permitted without a use permit of any kind.

The SAVS program residents are temporary by nature, but would not be required to leave after a certain period of time. SAVS has reported that some residents have left, either due to cause, or because they have transitioned to permanent housing, but the majority have been there the 9 months it has been in operation, and the intent from SAVS is that they would be able to continue to live at the site.

The use is considered temporary as neither the support units nor the RVs are permanent structures; the use is for a limited time; nor are there any site or other improvements to the property which would be permanent.

With the transition to a longer operational timeframe (from 12 months to 36 months, with the 2 year additional time extension being requested in this application), the Planning Director determined that definition of the use will change after the initial one year period to be classified as a ‘temporary residential use,’ as the turn-over of residents would exceed time period (“for a period of generally not more than six months”) with the extended use. The Planning Director has previously determined that uses beyond six months, but for a limited duration of up to five years are classified as “Temporary uses” and subject to the Temporary Use Permit process, and subject to Planning Commission review.

Section 17.430 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a Temporary Use Permit for non-permanent uses with the approval of the Planning Director (for uses six months or less) and by the Planning Commission for uses longer than six months. This Section also provides that the “decision-making authority may designate such conditions as determined to be necessary in order to secure the purposes of this code, and may require such guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being, or will be, complied with.” The RV Village requested an extension to operate as a 24-7 (24 hours a day/7 days a week) safe parking site, as it has operated since February 2022, for an additional 2 years beyond January 2023 (the one year originally envisioned). As noted above, the Planning Director determined that a Temporary Use Application would be needed for such a request, and SAVS submitted this application to the Planning Department on September 22, 2022. As the request was for a temporary use longer than six months, the application was heard at a duly-noticed Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

public hearing by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of October 11, 2022. The Planning Commission heard a staff report, the applicant’s presentation, and public testimony, and deliberated the project. The Commission concurred with staff’s recommendations, including concurring with the Planning Director’s interpretations, and adopted Resolution 22-07 approving the application based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained therein.

The Approval was appealed by Zach Imbrogno, President, Friends of Northwest Sebastopol (herein referred to as “Appellant” or FNS) and is now before the City Council as a public hearing on the Appeal.

Appeal Background
Per the Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC), appeals of a Planning Commission decision are heard by the City Council. In its review of an appeal from the Planning Commission the City Council shall consider the purpose and intent, as well as the letter, of the pertinent provision, and shall affirm, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission or Design Review Board determination or interpretation. The decision of the City Council shall be final. The City Council shall render its decision within 30 days of the hearing of the appeal, except that this time limit may be extended by mutual agreement of the City Council and the applicant.

Additionally, action on the appeal shall be limited to the issues raised in the appeal.

Per SMC 17.455.020(A) - Procedures for Appeals, “The Appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission or Design Review Board, as the case may be, or wherein their decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal shall be accompanied by such information as may be required to facilitate review.”
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
An appeal was received on October 17, 2022 from by Zach Imbrogno appealing the Planning Commission’s decision (see attachments).

The basis of appeal are:
1) The two-year extension of the RV Village is not a Temporary Use 2) The Commission may not make the findings necessary to approve a two-year extension as a temporary use;
3) The proposed two-year extension is not categorically exempt from CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act).

Additional information was included in the appeal package and is included in the attachments to this report.

Note, the Appellant’s “Appeal and Objection letter” begins with an “Appeal to Planning Commission”, however the letter was submitted during the Planning Commission meeting on October 11, 2022(and via public comment from Mr. Imbrogno), not as an appeal at that time despite the letter’s label. The letter was later submitted along with the appropriate appeal form and fee to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, which concurred with the Planning Director / city staff analysis.

ANALYSIS:

As the appeal is limited to the three questions above, staff has provided analysis regarding each element.

Appeal Item 1 - “A two-year extension of the RV Village is not a Temporary Use” and therefore does not qualify for a Temporary Use Permit.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

The City Council will need to determine if the Planning Director’s classification of the 24-7 recreational vehicle safe parking village as a Temporary Use, and the subsequent affirmation by the Planning Commission’s approval, is appropriate interpretation of the Municipal Code SMC 17.430, which defines and regulates temporary uses as follows:

17.430.010 Purpose - Applicability
The purpose of these provisions is to set forth the requirements and procedures for the review of specified temporary uses. The requirement for a temporary use permit shall apply to temporary uses, including contractor storage yards, temporary trailer offices for businesses, and circuses and carnivals and other temporary uses as determined by the Planning Director.

As noted above, the SMC defines “Temporary Use” to mean a non-permanent use on a site, which can be events, but also temporary storage yards, trailers, and similar uses as defined by the Planning Director.

The Appellant argues that “A two year extension is not a temporary use under Zoning Code Section 17.430.010, which defines “temporary uses” as “including contractor storage yards, temporary trailer offices for businesses, and circuses and carnivals and other temporary uses as determined by the Planning Director.” It appears the basis for this position is that the temporary uses determinable by the Planning Director should be similar to the other examples listed in Section 17.430.010 and that the appellant feels the RV Village is dissimilar from contractor storage yards, temporary trailer offices for businesses, and circuses and carnivals.

In particular, the appellant/FNS cites Moore v. California State Board of Accountancy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 999, 1011- 12 to state that when a statute contains a list or catalogue of items, a court should determine the meaning of each by reference to the others, giving preference to an interpretation that uniformly treats items similar in nature and scope. However, unlike Moore and the line of cases cited within Moore, Section 17.430.010 does not contain a true list or catalogue as the term “other temporary uses” is modified by “as determined by the Planning Director.” This imparts discretionary authority onto the Planning Director to determine temporary uses.

The Planning Director has, as provided for in the Municipal Code, determined several other types of uses to be Temporary Uses that are not included in the “list” portion of Section 17.430.010. Temporary residential uses and other longer-term but non-permanent business and community uses have been classified as a ‘temporary uses’, and therefore subject to a Temporary Use Permit. Two specific examples of this include the recently permitted micro-shelters at Community Church in Sebastopol (permitted in 2021 for a five year time frame as a temporary residential use) and the recently permitted beverage can/bottle redemption center (CRV Center) at 1000 Gravenstein Highway North (permitted for two years). Neither of these is listed specifically in the Municipal Code, however they were similarly classified as Temporary Uses as they are not permanently affixed or altering the sites and are not permanent uses.

In addition, the RV Village is similar to some of the items listed by name in the definition of Temporary Uses. In particular, contractor storage yards and temporary trailer offices for businesses can remain in place for long periods of time (1-3 years). There is also no requirement in the code that a temporary office trailer or storage yard be associated with a future permanent use.

The fact that, according to the appellant’s letter, contractor storage yards and temporary trailer offices indicate activities that occur while a permanent development is being completed does not differentiate these uses from the RV Village. The RV Village is also meant to be a temporary residential use, until permanent development of the site (anticipated in 2024) is ready and until a permanent housing solution for Village residents is found.

Moreover, there is no indication that storage yards and temporary trailer offices were in fact mentioned in the statute because of their relationship to a permanent offsite development. These temporary structures were included for the rational mentioned in the staff report- because they don’t require the construction of any Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

permanent improvements and because they will exist for a “temporary” period of time, which the City has defined as existing between 6 months and 5 years.

Appeal Item 2 – “The Commission may not make the findings necessary to approve a two-year extension as a temporary use”
This item refers to the required Findings for approval of a Temporary Use in the Municipal Code:

17.430.040 Findings. A temporary use permit may only be granted if the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or development, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

As described in the Planning Commission Staff report, the site’s physical setup has been vetted by City Staff for health and sanitation requirements prior to its initial operations, and SAVS has developed operational rules, which the Planning Commission required to be maintained for the duration of the operations. The Planning Commission also placed the following additional requirements on the use as part of its Use Permit approval:
a) Enhance coordination with Police for monitoring area surrounding site as a neighborhood watch function.
b) Provide quarterly reports to the Planning Commission as a regular agenda item. c) SAVS shall plan for the transition of residents at the end of the program. Reports on this plan shall begin on the 5th quarterly report at the latest.

The Planning Commission deliberated the potential impacts to the neighborhood from the use, and determined that there are multiple factors at issue, most of which are unrelated to the RV Village, whether they are completely tangential or what could be described as ‘overflow’ issues, and reviewed a number of contributing factors that may be related. These include:
 A large number of vacancies at the Redwood Marketplace and the former CVS (CVS is not owned by the Marketplace owners). These vacancies, and issues with the marketplace, have been on-going, and have been issues before the RV Village, with known issues occurring behind and around the alleyways of this site.
 Recent trend within the State of California, and Sonoma County, of a rise in homelessness due to wildfires, COVID, housing market issues, opioid crisis, and a number of other factors.  The RV Village can be seen as a benefit to the community and general welfare of the persons residing at the site and the City as a whole, in that these individuals are no longer parking on streets, and health and safety issues associated with living in an RV without access to water, electricity, and sewer have be eliminated for these vehicles, and persons who now have access to this, thus reducing harm within the city. If the Village were not in operation, the number of vehicles parking/living on the street would likely increase, along with the associated impacts.

The impacts cited within the letter and intended to be supported by the neighborhood impact report cannot be conclusively linked to the RV Village and its residents. In the Planning Commission’s discussions, which included the Police Chief Ron Nelson in attendance, many of the issues do not appear to come from the SAVS Horizon Village operations or residents themselves.

The adjoining neighbors have reported what has been described as ‘overflow’ issues – issues related not by the Village itself, but from other individuals outside of the site. These include reports of RVs parking near the site (for the neighbors just outside city limits, given the City’s RV Parking Ordinance and SAVS rules regarding not parking Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

in the neighborhood), littering, shoplifting, and other petty crimes. Clearly the RVs at the Village are not parking on adjoining streets, as they are parked at the site.

Additionally, SAVS noted that any individuals attracted to the RV site in hopes of being able to stay there are informed by SAVS that that is not the case, and that loitering in the area would have the opposite effect in terms of priority for housing at the site based on their policies. SAVS also described a policy of the Village residents being aware of and reporting or contacting individuals who are not behaving appropriately in the area. And, as noted above, the Police Chief recommended, and the Planning Commission approved, an additional condition of approval for enhancing this coordination with SAVS To assist with monitoring the areas outside the Village and reporting to the City’s police so they can proactively address in an appropriate way.

Lastly, as discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, these issues would potentially be worse if the SAVS site were closed, as there would be additional unhoused individuals in RVs looking for locations to stay. However, there may be ways to partner with SAVS as a ‘neighborhood watch’ given their gate monitor and on-site manager, and presence of other social service providers at the site during the daytime. Even if some of the impacts of the RV Village discussed within the letter occurred, FNS still does not account for the alternative of closure of the site as discussed in the staff report. Namely, if the SAVS site were closed at this time, there would be additional unhoused individuals in RVs looking for locations to stay.

Appeal Item 3 - The proposed two-year extension is not categorically exempt from CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act)
The appellant argues that a CEQA Exemption is not appropriate for the use because it is not ‘temporary’ and because of the community impacts. The issue of it not being temporary is discussed above. The Zoning Ordinance anticipates temporary uses that are longer than six months in the explicit separation between approval of uses less than six months by the Planning Director, and greater than six months by the Planning Commission, thereby clearly anticipating longer term temporary uses. Additionally, CEQA requires that the City look at the potential changes to the environment as compared to existing conditions (the so-called “baseline”) to determine whether the changes will have any environmental impact. Here, the existing physical conditions on the site includes an operational RV Village. The request to extend the time the RV Village may operate on the site does not include any physical modification of the site. Therefore, the only “change” from existing conditions is that the RV Village will continue to operate for two more years. The City is unaware of any evidence, and the appellant has not presented any evidence, that the operation of the RV Village will have any impacts on the environment.

As such, the Temporary Use Permit is covered by the common sense exemption where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).)
In addition, the Temporary Use Permit is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 “Existing Facilities” which covers the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” The Temporary Use Permit involves only the operation and permitting of the existing RV Village and does not expand the existing use of the RV Village. As such, the Temporary Use Permit for the RV Village is exempt from CEQA review under section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. The temporary use is also categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, which includes minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment.

GOALS AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:

This action supports the following City Council Goals:

Goal 9 - Enhance housing opportunities in Sebastopol and, when possible, provide assistance to housing projects.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Additionally, the City adopted a Resolution in 2018 declaring a local Homeless Emergency and Shelter Crisis in 2018 (Reso No 6213), and Adopted a Resolution on November 30, 2021 proclaiming the existence of a Local Homeless Emergency (Reso No 6386-2021).

The proposed Temporary Use is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use (General Commercial, which allows affordable housing, homeless shelters, and similar residential uses as a Permitted Use, and also allows Temporary Uses with a Temporary Use Permit), as well as the General Plan’s policies. The provision of this site for temporary housing for homeless individuals complies with a number of the Adopted General Plan Housing Element policies, including:

Policy D-2 – Encourage expansion of housing opportunities for extremely low-income households, in that it provides temporary location for temporary housing at the site for unhoused individuals.

Policy D-6 – Work to prevent homelessness and support housing services to the homeless, in that a number of non-profit organizations, including SAVS but also Gravenstein Health Center and West County Community Services, are able to provide ‘wrap-around’ supportive services both to support potential transition to permanent housing as well as other needed services such as health care, meals, etc.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public Comments received for the Planning Commission meeting and received as of the writing of this staff report, are included in the Attachments. Staff anticipates receiving public comment from interested parties following the publication and distribution of this staff report. Such comments will be provided to the City Council as supplemental materials before or at the meeting. In addition, public comments may be offered during the public comment portion of the agenda item.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to schedule meeting date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None, this is a private non-profit organization operates the Village.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the draft Resolution, which would deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, subject to the Findings of fact in the Resolution, and subject to the Exhibit A, Village Operating Conditions, and Exhibit B, Specific Conditions of Approval, and Exhibit C, Standard Conditions of Approval.

Alternatively, the Council may modify the Conditions of Approval in conjunction with the above.

Exhibits:

Draft City Council Resolution and Exhibits
Attachments:

1. Appeal from Zackary Imbrogno and Friends of Northwest Sebastopol

2. SAVS application documents

3. Planning Commission Resolution and approval exhibits

4. Planning Commission Report and Minutes

5. Temporary Use Permits ordinance

6. Public comments (including comments received for the Planning Commission hearing) Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

RESOLUTION NUMBER: -2022

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL DENYING AN APPEAL FROM ZACKARY IMBROGNO / FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL (PL 2022-088)

AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF

A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A
TEMPORARY 24-7 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) SAFE PARKING SITE AT 845 GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH (APN 060-261-030)
BY SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGES (SAVS) (PL 2022-73)
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol received an application by Sonoma Applied Villages for a Temporary Use Permit to operate a 24-7 safe parking site for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) at 845 Gravenstein Highway North on September 22, 2022 (File PL 2022-73); and WHEREAS, such a temporary use may be authorized through the approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP), as outlined in the Sebastopol Municipal Code Section 17.430 “Temporary Use Permits”; and
WHEREAS, a Temporary Use Permit of more than six months may be granted if the Planning Commission finds that the “establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or development, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.” WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application by Sonoma Applied Villages for a “Temporary Use Permit of more than six months” to operate a 24-7 safe parking site for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) at 845 Gravenstein Highway North, considering the written and oral staff report, public testimony, and resolution, all of which the Planning Commission duly considered and unanimously approved adopted Planning Commission Resolution 22-07 confirming the CEQA exemption and adopting Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was received on October 17 from Zackary Imbrogno, President, Friends of Northwest Sebastopol, and Friends of Northwest Sebastopol, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision on the basis that: 1) a two-year extension of the RV Village is not a Temporary Use; 2) the Commission may not make the findings necessary to approve a two-year extension as a temporary use; 3) the proposed two-year extension is not categorically exempt from CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) (File PL 2022-88); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on November 15, 2022 to consider the Appeal of Zack Imbrogno, President, Friends of Northwest Sebastopol of the Planning Commission’s approval of the application by Sonoma Applied Villages for a “Temporary Use Permit of more than six months” to operate a 24-7 safe parking site for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) at 845 Gravenstein Highway North, in which it considered the written and oral staff report, presentations from the Appellant and the Applicant, heard public testimony, duly deliberated the Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

appeal.

WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol completed a comprehensive General Plan update with adoption of a new General Plan on November 15, 2016, and a Housing Element that was adopted on March 30, 2015; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR, § 15000 et seq.), on November 15, 2016, the City Council certified and adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sebastopol General Plan (the “Project”; State Clearinghouse No. 2016032001); and WHEREAS, the City adopted a Resolution 6213 on October 2, 2018, declaring a local Homeless Emergency and Shelter Crisis, as there were 69 persons within the City of Sebastopol, and an additional 214 persons within the greater Sebastopol and West County area, that were homeless and living without shelter in 2018; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Homeless Count found that this number had risen to 129 homeless and living without shelter;
WHEREAS, the 2022 Homeless Count found that a significant reduction from 2020 from 129 to 78 homeless and living without shelter; and
WHEREAS, the Homeless Count includes those living in their vehicles, including recreational vehicles, at ‘safe parking’ sites, and in temporary residential use and homeless shelters such as Horizon Shine and RV spaces at Park Village mobile home park; and WHEREAS, the number of homeless is significant, and these persons are without the ability to obtain shelter; and
WHEREAS, the health and safety of unsheltered persons in Sebastopol is threatened by a lack of shelter; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol City Council Adopted Resolution 6386-2021 on November 30, 2021, proclaiming the existence of a Local Homeless Emergency, and finding that living in such conditions continue to result in a critical threat to the physical and mental health and safety of those experiencing homelessness, as well as to the natural environment and the public health and well-being of the surrounding community, and thereby continue to place the safety of persons and property at extreme peril within the territorial limits of the city; and WHEREAS, scope of the local homeless crisis is beyond the resources of the City standing alone and require the combined forces of adjacent jurisdictions and state agencies, as well as non-profit organizations; and
WHEREAS, the Project site provides a location for other non-profit organizations and social service providers to administer assistance to these individuals, including health care, nutrition, counseling and case management; and
WHEREAS, the provision of safe parking for the homeless at this site significantly reduces the Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

number of individuals without a location to stay and without access to needed social support services; and
WHEREAS, reducing the number of homeless individuals without shelter is in the interest of the City and its residents, and is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or development, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City; and
WHEREAS, as the Temporary Use Permit involves only the operation and permitting of the existing RV Village and does not expand the existing use of the RV Village; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Temporary Use Permit is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” which covers the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.”
WHEREAS, as there are no physical changes to the environment proposed by the Project, the City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which exempts Projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, which includes minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. The use is consistent with this categorical exemption as this is a temporary use and does not require permanent improvements. And, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the use, a temporary residential use for a 24-7 safe parking for RV (Recreational Vehicles), and the proposed two-year limited time frame is a temporary use consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.430 – Temporary Use Permits, and therefore eligible for the granting of a Temporary Use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of this adopted General Plan, in that the provision of this site for temporary housing for homeless individuals complies with a number of the Adopted General Plan Housing Element policies, including:

Policy D-2 – Encourage expansion of housing opportunities for extremely low-income households, in that it provides temporary location for temporary housing at the site for unhoused individuals, and
Policy D-6 – Work to prevent homelessness and support housing services to the homeless, in that a number of non-profit organizations, including SAVS but also Gravenstein Health Center and West County Community Services, are able to provide ‘wrap-around’ supportive services both to support potential transition to permanent housing as well as other needed services such as health care and meals; and Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

WHEREAS, the Sonoma Applied Villages will be subject to a number of conditions of approval during the two-year duration of the Temporary Use Permit to ensure that it is compatible with the neighborhood and to ensure transition of the residents of the site once the use ends; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, based on the above findings of fact, the granting of the Temporary Use Permit will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or development, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the granting of a Temporary Use Permit for Sonoma Applied Villages to operate the Project, the “Horizon Shine” 24-7 recreational vehicle safe parking site at 845 Gravenstein Highway North for two years is consistent with the above findings, the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Sebastopol City Council hereby adopts a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval, based on the findings above, and subject to the Operating Parameters included in Exhibit A, and the Conditions of Approval included in Exhibits B and C, approving the application for the temporary use permit to Sonoma Applied Villages (SAVS) to operate a 24-7 safe parking site for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) at 845 Gravenstein Highway North until December 31, 2024, by the following vote:

VOTE:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

APPROVED: _______________________________________
Mayor Patrick Slayter
ATTEST: ______________________________________________________________________ Mary Gourley, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, MMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________________________ Larry McLaughlin, City Attorney
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
24/7 Safe Parking
Operations Manual
Sonoma Applied Village Services
1275 4th Street, Suite #101, Box 196,
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: (707) 861-0646
Private Non-Profit Federal Tax ID Number: 83-4609220
Original: Summer 2021
Revised: 12/03/21
EXHIBIT B: SCOPE OF WORK
As stated in paragraph 3 of the Agreement: SAVS shall, in a manner satisfactory to CITY, perform the services described in Exhibit B (incorporated here by specific reference) and as provided in paragraph 15, Prosecution of Work. In the event of a conflict between the body of this Agreement and any Exhibit, the provisions in the body of this Agreement control.

The services referenced in paragraph 3 of the Agreement are contained in the SAVS Operations Manual, which includes site specific terms.

EXHIBIT A - OPERATING PARAMETERS
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

2 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Table of Contents
Introduction: Safe Parking Needs in Sonoma County .……………...……………………..3 Section I – (SAVS) Foundational Statements……………………..……………….………….5 Section II – Overview Safe Parking Village Operations……………………………….……..6 Section III -- SAVS Operational Responsibilities……………………………….……………..7 Section IV -- Security……………………………………………………………………..……...8 Section V – Resident Self Governance………………………………………………….……10 Section VI – Resident Selection and Intake………………………………………………….11 Section VII – Case Management to Permanent Housing…………………………….…….14 Section VIII – Connecting Residents to Assistance…………………………………………14 Section IX -- Resident Rights and Responsibilities………………………………………….14 Section X – Resident Agreements and Liability Waivers…………………………………...15 Section Xl – Intervention Plans & Disciplinary Procedures ………………………….…….16 Section XIl – Other Village Policies……………………………………………………………18 Section XIIl - Evaluation and Assessment……………………………………………………19 Section XIV – Modifications…………………………………………………………………… 20 Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………….20
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

3 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES

INTRODUCTION
Safe Parking Needs in Sonoma County
The road to homelessness is often complex and indirect. Often, some combination of uncontrollable external forces, unpredictable events, unfortunate consequences, and random chance overcomes an individual’s ability to stave off the eventual loss of a safe and stable housing option. A person’s vehicle can represent a personal refuge: the last remaining link to a sense of privacy, stability, and personal autonomy. Adequate shelters are also commonly inaccessible to vehicle residents because there is no place to leave the vehicle. For many, their vehicle is their home. “Hidden in Plain Sight – Finding Safe Parking for Vehicle Residents” (From the Seattle School of Law’s Homeless Rights Advocacy Project) https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/hrap/14/

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CARS AND RVS
RVs and cars randomly parked and lacking access to basic sanitary and waste facilities, are a highly visible reminder of the amount of progress we need to make as a society when it comes to housing those without the means to afford rents in Sonoma County. A recent count by Santa Rosa Police estimated there are 330 vehicles used for overnight shelter in Santa Rosa. Countywide, roughly 700 people live in their vehicles, making up over a quarter of the homeless population.

Currently, a total of less than 30 slots for safe parking exists in the County. Safe parking sites are a basic and necessary interim measure for addressing the needs of County residents sheltering in vehicles while permanent housing solutions are planned and implemented.

Accommodating these numbers
SAVS estimates that a safe, hygienic, 3-acre site can accommodate approximately 15-20 RVs or 50 cars. Further, SAVS estimates the current need in the County to be about 50% RVs and 50% cars.

The County would then need space for approximately for 150 RVs (10 acres) and 150 cars (3 acres) – or about 10-15 acres of safe parking to park every car and RV in Sonoma County. We estimate a 2-acre lot to contain approximately 25 RVs (1 ½ acre) and 25 cars (½ acre).

BENEFITS OF SAFE PARKING SITES
Safe Parking programs have proven effective as tools for improving the community as well as the lives of residents served by the Safe Parking program.1 A municipal safe parking program will 1 https://priceschool.usc.edu/research-shows-safe-parking-programs-can-help-homeless/ https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/safe_parking_program.asp https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e40681539b77957555f10e0/t/609ef7cbf37faf27b583665f/1621030860604/FINAL_McElwai n_Schiele_Waheed_Report.pdf
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

4 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
provide the following highly visible benefits to Santa Rosa and to unsheltered, low-income residents who have transportation, but cannot afford rent.

Benefits Include:
● Significantly fewer RVs and cars on the streets.
● Significantly less police and sanitation services needed. Last year’s Santa Rosa police calls represented 15% of the department’s overall calls for officer response, which, combined with mental health and drug-related issues, make up the vast majority of calls for service.
● Consolidation into small communities means more efficient delivery of health, welfare and coordinated entry services to chronically homeless persons (especially those that will not enter a shelter because they will lose their vehicle).
● Safe Parking is more cost effective than building or remodeling new congregate shelters or transitional housing.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

5 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Section I – Sonoma Applied Village Services (SAVS)
Foundational Statements

VISION AND VALUES
We believe that everyone has a right to a home. The quality of life and well-being of the whole community is raised by working in partnership to end the condition of homelessness. We believe housing can be delivered at much lower costs and more expeditiously, if safe parking and tiny villages are implemented in Sonoma County.

MISSION
The primary objective and purpose of SAVS is to help house the homeless in Sonoma County. We are committed to creating tiny villages where formerly unsheltered residents live with dignity and hope, where they can participate in the management of a community where they can pursue goals for empowerment and improved mental and physical health in partnership with the larger community.

STRATEGY
Our approach is to partner with individuals and organizations working to resolve the County’s homeless crisis, including homeless and formerly homeless persons, housed individuals, neighbors, health care providers, faith-based organizations, volunteers, county and municipal agencies and officials, and non-profit service groups.

Our goals are:
1) to facilitate and leverage a shared understanding of needs, perceptions, responsibilities, and accountability in order to create safe parking villages that provide basic shelter and security in a cooperative and collaborative atmosphere, and
2) to support village residents in attaining personal improvement goals and ultimately to help them secure permanent housing.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A SAVS Safe Parking Program serves residents of Sonoma County encampments living in privatelyowned cars and RVs. We operate from a Housing First model by providing 24/7 and overnight parking with supportive services for transitional homeless people living in their vehicles. We view this as the first step in the process to permanent housing. Our approach is an individually tailored and resident-driven case-management process that includes employment assistance and training, community and healthcare referrals, placement in the coordinated entry system, and ongoing followup and assessment during residency. This SAVS process is designed to include those with many years on the street and/or extensive health, addiction and mental illness needs.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

6 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Section II – Overview of Safe Parking Village Operations Low-cost Safe Parking villages are a critical step on the path to permanent housing. SAVS Safe Parking Villages deliver dignity and build skills by creating an environment where residents and managers work together in community to drive down costs and foster community involvement.

A SAVS employee, the SAVS Village Project Manager, working under the direction of the SAVS Board of Directors, will be ultimately responsible for the successful operation of the village. SAVS Village Project Manager will collaborate with and support the other staff. (Definitions follow) Function Notes
Parking Residents will be provided one parking space for up to 2 individuals. Some lots will offer additional overnight parking (7pm to 7am) based on availability.

Insurance SAVS will provide overall liability insurance for the lots.

SAVS does not provide vehicle insurance.

Safety Safety is of the utmost importance and will be maintained by the SAVS Village Project Manager and all paid staff. The SAVS Village Project Manager will be available on site as needed, and on call 24/7. Residents and trained volunteers may
assist with security. Our team approach does not require the high-cost, low-dividend expense of hiring a 24/7 security service.

Food Prepared food is generally not provided. However, easy to prepare foods will be available and SAVS will work with other service organizations to provide food.

Sanitation SAVS will provide portable restroom and washing facilities.

SAVS will contract with a sanitation company for both
garbage removal service and RV waste servicing.

Shared
Responsibilities
Residents will contribute a minimum of 6 hours per month in the maintenance of the village.

Drugs, Alcohol
Policy
SAVS is aligned with the Housing First model: we encourage and support a sober environment. SAVS believes in ‘harm reduction’ and ‘meeting the person where they are on their path to recovery’. SAVS has a firm code of conduct policy that will be signed by each resident and will be initially enforced through the on-site Village Council.

Overnight
Parking Rules
For overnight lots, residents may not park additional vehicles within three blocks of the designated lot. Lots may have different operating hours during holidays and weekends.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

7 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Section III - SAVS Operational Responsibilities
Funding & Government Relations
SAVS is responsible for complying with all government contracts and delivering on contractual commitments.

Co-Managed Leadership
The SAVS Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for all aspects related to creating and managing the village, as well as for ensuring residents are safe, connected to social and medical services, and feel welcomed and cared for.

Safe Parking Tiny Villages will vary in the number of staff and the tasks each staff person is assigned.

Each site will likely be different. What follows is a description of a Tiny Village with two full time staff members and an on-site resident manager.

The village site will be co-managed by the SAVS Village Project Manager and the Resident Services Manager in collaboration with a small Council of 3-5 resident leaders, ensuring that the village is a caring and inclusive place for all of the residents.
● The SAVS Village Project Manager reports to the SAVS Board of Directors and will run operations (sanitation, security, and overall project management). The Village Project Manager enforces policy in conjunction with the Resident Board. The Village Project Manager is responsible for the case management process, overseeing outside reporting and compliance requirements, reporting to the SAVS Board, maintaining community relationships, managing human resource needs, and ensuring that operations conform to community agreements and the approved budget. The Village Project Manager will be accessible via cell phone 24/7 and will respond to emergencies quickly.
● The Resident Services Manager reports to the SAVS Village Project Manager. The Resident Services Manager will be responsible for day-to-day operation of the physical site, ensuring that it is safe and functional, as well as organizing community responsibilities and meetings.

Key tasks include: managing security, resolving non-critical grievances and conflicts, and ensuring the site is clean and clear. If other staff members are needed or possible at a Village site, this position will be shared with appropriate division of primary responsibilities.

The Resident Services Manager will lead village meetings, if capable and willing. Otherwise, the SAVS Village Project Manager or a volunteer from the Village will lead village meetings.

The SAVS staff will be responsible for selecting and training a resident for the position and a staff member will attend the weekly meetings.
● The Village Council
Elections are held during Village Meetings to maintain a Village Council of 3 to 5 residents that meets weekly. To become a Council member, a resident must be nominated by another resident. A majority vote of Villagers present, decide which nominees are elected. The elected term is two months. Council members may serve consecutive terms. The role of the Village Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

8 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Council is to sustain resident participation in the orderly management of the village. The Council will hear complaints, enforce community behavioral guidelines and apply written rules of conduct. The Village Project Manager will enforce rules when referred by the Village Council or requested by the Resident Services Manager.

Grievances
Grievances should be submitted to the SAVS Village Project Manager on a SAVS Grievance Form and filed within one week of the date the person filing the grievance becomes aware of the incident in question. The Grievance Form requests the name and contact information; a summary of the alleged problem or action and the remedy or relief sought. An investigation will be conducted, and the Village Project Manager will issue a written decision on the grievance no later than 30 days after its filing. The individual filing the grievance may appeal the decision by writing to the SAVS Board of Directors within 15 days of receiving the decision. The Board of Directors will issue a written response to the appeal no later than 30 days after its filing. If the grievance is against the Village Project Manager, it will be taken up directly by the Board of Directors.

Client Confidentiality and Privacy Policies
The Safe Parking policies and procedures ensure the confidentiality of program participants' identifying information; records pertaining to any individual or family provided with assistance; and treatment services offered under any project within the SAVS Safe Parking program. Staff will not divulge the names or any personal identifying information of program participants without written consent. Further, the address or location of any participant assisted through the Safe Parking Program will be anonymous, except upon written authorization from the client/program participant.

Section IV Security
Villages will be fenced with a gate that is monitored. There will always be one person on site who is explicitly in charge of security. This responsibility will be shared between SAVS staff. The On-Site Resident Manager will be available by phone in the evenings and nights when other staff may not be present. SAVS volunteers and residents will be organized to perform security watches in the evenings, with an overnight off-site staff member on call. Guest policies will be determined by the Village Council, unless Covid restrictions by the County Health Officer require otherwise.

When required by contract, other security arrangements are possible. As necessary, a 24/7 commercial Security Service will be in place upon site opening to provide immediate safety and security for the residents. The continued need for private security services may then be assessed on a monthly basis according to:
● The number of actual security incidents within the village ● Neighborhood incidents related to village residents or guests ● The strength and reliability of our self-governance and peer-support programs Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

9 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Front Gate Security in SAVS 24/7 Safe Parking Sites
The front gate is the only routine access in and out of the lot and shall remain secure. A second gate will only be used for emergencies. Staffing the front desk is one of the most important duties at a SAVS Safe Parking Village. If this is not done by private security, it will be one of the mandatory service tasks for all residents.

Three Stages of Response
All staff and residents will follow SAVS Three Stages of Response for maintaining a secure and orderly environment within the Village. Stage 1 is the least severe and most common type of response. Stage 3 is the most severe and least common type of response.

Stage 1. Minor Incidents of Concern: Contact a Village Council Member. These problems will generally be resolved within the Village Council through the disciplinary system. Warnings will be issued if the problem is not resolved. If the Council is unable to end the problem, they will refer it to the Village Project Manager who will act, up to and including removing a resident from the program.

All efforts, including other housing/shelter options will be pursued before any permanent removals.

Stage 2. Potentially serious and serious incidents: Call the On-Site Manager and the SAVS Program Manager. After consultation with the Village Council, appropriate response will be enacted, as in unresolved issues within Stage 1.

Stage 3. Emergencies: Call 911
See Section XI for Fire and Safety and Emergency Evacuation plans See Section XIII for a detailed explanation of the disciplinary process Neighborhood Relations
Neighborhood relations are a critical part of the Village operations. The Village Project Manager will either be a single point of contact for village neighbors, or will appoint someone to that function.

Meetings with neighbors and the Village Council will be arranged by the Village Project Manager. We will strive to find neighbors to work with the Village as liaisons and volunteers. We will establish a system for the community to donate items, provide food and help the village maintain and operate successfully. Weekly teams of Village residents will do litter pick up in the surrounding area of approximately 4 blocks. No one will be allowed to linger in the neighborhood outside the Village.

Transportation
SAVS can provide shuttle service, if needed, for scheduled laundromat trips. SAVS vehicles will also help residents within budget constraints and when vehicle needs of other SAVS programs are met. It will not offer on-demand or regularly scheduled rides for residents.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

10 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Food
Staff will invite and coordinate prepared food and meal donations by churches, Redwood Empire Food Bank, other nonprofits, and volunteers to help improve access to food. Neither a kitchen nor cold food storage will be provided.

Volunteers
SAVS staff will coordinate volunteer contributions to the village and residents, arrange schedules, and work with resident leaders and the case management team. SAVS intends to use as many volunteers as we have access to, in order to drive down costs and increase community engagement with the program.

Financial Management
All financial management tasks will be completed by the Village Project Manager. The Village Council may have a small fund for their use. Fund distribution will be overseen by the SAVS Treasurer and Bookkeeper with standard protocols in place.

Section V – Resident Self Governance
Self-governance is a core value of SAVS Safe Parking villages. This means that the success of the Village relies on the participation of residents in making decisions related to its policies and management. Participation is organized within two structures: The Village Council with weekly meetings and required monthly meetings of all residents.

Monthly Village Meeting
Attendance at the monthly Village Meeting is required of residents. Issues related to the policies, organization and management of the Village are discussed and, when appropriate, voted on at this time, as are resident suggestions, requests, and concerns.

Village Council
Elections are held during Village Meetings to maintain a Village Council of 3 to 5 residents that meets weekly. To become a Council member, a resident must be nominated by another resident. A majority vote of Villagers present decide which nominees are elected. The elected term is two months.

Council members may serve consecutive terms. The role of the Village Council is to sustain resident participation in the orderly management of the village. A primary responsibility of the Council is to serve as a contact between meetings when urgent situations arise. All Council decisions are potentially subject to review by the entire village at a Village Meeting by following the Village Appeal Process. In this way, service on the Council is much like any other form of contribution to the operation and maintenance of the village.

Through Self-governance and village participation, residents will:
● Gain a sense of community and human connection
● Enjoy a much safer environment
● Form stable affinity groups and longer-term relationships Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

11 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
● Keep their pets
● Gain the ability to live with spouses or intimate partners ● Find a sense of place, privacy, and personal space
● Develop communication and basic management skills
● Gain a sense of self-worth, purpose, direction and recognition of their value to their own success and to the success of others.
● Increase their ability to derive an income.

The Council is not meant to bestow greater power than that of any other resident. Those elected to the council are given the task of responding to incidents when a community agreement is broken and recommending an appropriate level of intervention as specified in this manual. When an incident occurs that is not described in this manual, it is up to the Village Council and staff managers to determine the appropriate level of intervention.

All Council decisions are potentially subject to review by the entire village at a Village Meeting following the Appeal Process. In this way, service on the Council is much like any other form of contribution to the operation and maintenance of the village. For incidents resulting in suspension or expulsion, the offender must be given a chance to appeal before taking their leave.

Exception: Possession of guns, firearms, and weapons of any kind; violence; and drug dealing are not permitted. Anyone committing these offences will be asked to leave the premises immediately. There is no appeal in these cases.

SECTION VI – Resident Selection
Client Acceptance Policy
SAVS’ Safe Parking Program shall adhere to federal, state, county, and city government guidelines for aiding individuals and families who qualify as homeless according to the definition of homeless under 401(1) McKinney-Vento Act. SAVS Safe Parking manager shall be responsible for reviewing and approving eligibility determination in order to ensure that all national and local program goals are achieved. All clients must meet minimum eligibility requirements, which include current license, vehicle registration, and insurance. There is the option to register the vehicle as non-operational.

Disability and English Proficiency Policy
It is the policy of Sonoma Applied Village Services and the Safe Parking Program not to discriminate based on disability and to ensure that all villagers, volunteers and staff comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). When asked, staff will make reasonable accommodation for all program participants with disabilities or Limited English Proficiency. During intake and/or as needed, these needs will be identified, and the SAVS Manager will be advised to ensure accommodation. Every effort will be made to provide meaningful access to the program and its services and/or access to a translator.

All complaints regarding ADA violations should first be referred to the SAVS Manager who will attempt to make reasonable accommodations. Any person who believes that he or she has been Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

12 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
subjected to discrimination based on disability may file a grievance under the SAVS grievance procedure, which provides prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Referrals
When required, referrals will be limited to agencies designated by the party funding the village.

Otherwise, potential Safe Parking Program participants may be referred by community partners, community housing agencies, veteran services, community mental health centers, local shelters, and others. Partners will be provided with materials describing program requirements and with referral forms. Individuals may also apply to become residents. An exception is if a particular grant or contract requires the use of Coordinated Entry or other restrictions.

Allowable Vehicles
Each site will have a maximum number of larger vehicles (RVs or trailers). Additional vehicles to tow trailers or to be used as a resident’s car must be cleared with the Resident’s council and will be allowed based on the available parking space. Recreational vehicles (RVs) may have a size limit in some lots. Virtually every type of car, truck, van, and SUV is potentially acceptable.

Entry Criteria
SAVS acceptance policy conforms to Housing First Low-Barrier procedures, although individuals referred to SAVS Safe Parking sites must meet the following criteria:
● Applicant's vehicle must be in operating order or be registered as “not operational” with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. (DMV).
● If the vehicle is not registered as non-operational, applicants must have current driver’s license, registration, and automobile insurance.
● Applicants must be homeless and their vehicle must be their primary residence. ● Applicants using streets in the surrounding city district will receive priority access over those from other city districts unless a specific grant or contract requires otherwise. ● SAVS does not accept families with children under 18.

Screening and Intake
The SAVS Safe Parking Program intake shall adhere to federal, state, county, and city government guidelines for aiding individuals and families who qualify as homeless according to the definition of homeless under 401(1) McKinney-Vento Act.
● When there is an opening, applicants will be contacted by a SAVS Safe Parking Program staff member for screening and intake no more than 10 business days after receiving a referral or request for membership in the program.
● Applicants will be requested to bring a copy of proof of income from all sources, as well as ID(s) for all household members. We do not accept children under 18 at this time. After application, the staff will do a background check looking for violent crimes, falsehoods on the application, and whether the applicant is a registered sex offender. If these things are discovered, staff will discuss the issues with the applicant and make a determination for fit and eligibility.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

13 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
● The initial intake process will include HMIS entries as well as the Safe Parking Intake Forms. In addition, a Coordinated Entry assessment will be made, if that has not been completed previously.
● Enrollment forms that should be completed by end of intake meeting include:

1. Signed and dated Safe Parking Intake Packet

2. Signed and dated Consent to Exchange/Release of Information New Resident Status
Before being fully accepted as a villager, a new resident will be assigned a spot in the Village and have a temporary status for a 4-week period to ensure they are willing to follow Village rules and to take on the required responsibilities. The goal of this policy is for the staff and the potential villager to obtain a fair and objective assessment as to whether the potential villager is willing to be a contributing member of the community.

A mentor will guide each new resident through orientation and do a daily check-in to answer any questions or concerns that they may have. It will also be the mentor's responsibility to counsel the resident when issues arise as to how the concerns may be addressed.

The mentor and new resident will meet with the Residents Council once a week to talk about any problems. If after four weeks, the Residents Council, Site Manager and Project Manager agree, temporary status will progress to ongoing status. Within this period, staff and the resident will complete a Housing Stabilization Action and Case Management Plan. (Action Plan). If there are problems that need time to be addressed, the provisional period may be extended by a defined period-of-time.

Section VII – Case Management to Permanent Housing
The SAVS Safe Parking Program recognizes that comprehensive case management is the most important component of helping village residents become stably housed. Our case management process relies on an Integrated Resident Team (IRT) that includes the client, an assigned operational staff member, an IHSS provider if necessary, and options for volunteer support, family, friends, and an assigned resident leader. The IRT will meet monthly to discuss and enact plans for the resident, and to track needs and progress. Because clients will typically be coming off the street, case management may initially entail early assessment and close communication for weeks or perhaps months while critical changes take place mentally, physically, and administratively.

Needs Assessment
Needs assessment is at the heart of case management. All Safe Parking services are linked to documented needs that are the basis of a completed Housing Stabilization Action and Case Management Plan (Action Plan) for each resident or household, needs that ultimately relate to securing stable housing. Needs assessment updates are scheduled on a case-by-case basis. This plan is intended to be a living document that is updated as needs and goals of the client change. The Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

14 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
updates allow for tracking residents’ progress toward goals, status of needs, and potential ongoing or new problem areas that need to be addressed to secure or maintain stable housing. All Plans are to be signed and dated by the participant head of household and program Case Manager.

Section VIII – Connecting Residents to Assistance
The Safe Parking Program is committed to working collaboratively to ensure that participants receive benefits such as health care, disability, nutritional assistance, and other services such as employment and vocational rehabilitation assistance to which they are entitled. External programs may include Social Security, Covered California or Medicare, CALFresh, V.A. services and mental health support.

The Safe Parking Program shall observe all federal, state, and local requirements relating to interaction with other programs through which the Safe Parking Program participants may receive services. The Safe Parking Program shall ensure that no unauthorized duplication or overlap of benefits occurs.

Section lX – Resident Rights and Responsibilities
Code of Conduct
All residents are expected to comply with the following rules and regulations of the SAVS Safe Parking Program and with any agreements they sign upon intake.

I. Possession of guns, firearms, and weapons of any kind; violence; and drug dealing are not permitted. Anyone committing these offences will be asked to leave the premises permanently. There is no appeal in these cases.

II. The following actions will be referred to the disciplinary system:

1. Public use of alcohol and/or drugs, and causing a public disturbance

2. Urinating and defecating on the property

3. Tarps covering exterior objects. (Exceptions may be made for roof leak prevention)

4. Cooking outside the vehicle or in vehicles with unsafe cooking systems

5. Trash or random property outside the vehicle

6. Music or other noise which disturbs resident neighbors

7. Aggressive dogs which are not controlled by the owner; dogs off-leash or animal waste left on the ground.

8. Disturbances during quiet hours from 10 pm to 8 am.

Disciplinary System
SAVS Safe Parking Village rules are enforced for the safety and benefit of all residents. All problems, except violence, guns and other weapons and drug dealing are dealt with on a three-tier system.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

15 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES

1. The disciplinary system is triggered by a referral or complaint to the Village Council by residents, neighbors, or staff. In a private session with the resident, the complaint will be discussed, and a solution to the problem will be proposed. Solutions will be in writing, signed by the relevant parties and have an action plan and completion date.

2. If this does not resolve the problem, the Village Council will consider the problem again and impose a stronger, structured resolution.

3. If the problem remains, the staff will consult with the Village Project Manager and impose a definitive solution. This solution may include a temporary or permanent suspension from the Village.

4. If the problem involves a grievance, it should be submitted to the SAVS Manager on a SAVS Grievance Form, as explained in Section III.

Section X – Resident Agreements and Liability Waivers
The following language will be part of the resident agreements which will be signed during the intake process:

I / We, accept and agree to respect, acknowledge, and adhere to the rules, policy, and procedure guidelines and regulations that are stated above and will accept full responsibility of the consequences of the outcome if there is a violation to this contract.

SAVS Waiver of Liability
I authorize Sonoma Applied Village Services (SAVS) to refer me to other agencies. Receive, request, disclose, release and exchange useful or personal information from any personal reference, entity, agency, past, present or future employer or organization that she/ he may consider can or may provide assistance to help me obtain my desired goals of becoming self-sufficient. Furthermore, I agree to hold harmless and free of any liability or responsibility, the Job Developer, Case Manager and any of the agencies, entities, individuals, Board of Directors, Organizations, past, present or future employers of the outcome of this release.

City of Santa Rosa Waiver of Liability
This language will be part of any agreement with the City of Santa Rosa:

Safe Parking Village resident hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the CITY OF SANTA ROSA, its officers, agents and expenses (including attorney's fees) judgments or liabilities for personal or bodily injury (including death, or other injury resulting from bodily injury) or property damage (including physical injury to property or loss of use thereof) arising out of applicant's negligence or willful misconduct in connection with client's use of the parking facilities.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

16 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Section Xl –Intervention Plans & Disciplinary Procedures All intervention actions require the agreement of a majority of Village Council members. In cases of expulsion from the Village, where the Villager is not an imminent threat to others, the Villager to be expelled will be given a reasonable amount of time to make arrangements for their safety. Unless a resident is an imminent threat to others, the resident will not be expelled after 8pm.

Suspensions
The SAVS Safe Parking Program is committed to providing timely assistance for gaining and retaining stable, safe housing to eligible clients and/or households. If the program has evidence that a participant is no longer eligible for these services, has not been fully engaged in the program, and/or has not been fully compliant with program requirements, a suspension review will be held as provided in the Disciplinary Procedure outlined in Section VIII.

Examples of noncompliance and lack of engagement include: failure to attend meetings, failure to return phone calls or e-mails, failure to engage in meetings of the IRT. If it is determined that one or more of the above conditions merits a suspension action, the Disciplinary process will be followed with the following documentation:
• An incident report shall be entered into the case file documenting the situation and recommending suspension of services
• The Case Manager will inform the head of household of the situation and schedule a meeting within 3 business days. If the participant cannot be reached within 3 days, a letter of suspension and pending termination shall be sent to the participant. • At the next Village Council meeting, the head of household will be notified of the issues that triggered the suspension review. In addition, there will be a review of the resident’s history at the village, record of successes, areas for improvement, outstanding issues and possible consequences. The resident will be given an opportunity to explain or rebut. The resident will be given a maximum of 5 business days to comply with any conditions (e.g., provide verification of income, attend required meetings, or perform required activities).

Evictions
If a participant household is deemed unfit for the program, the Case Manager shall document the reasons and present the information to the Program Manager. A review will be conducted by the Program Manager, and if the Case Manager and Program Manager are in agreement, then the head of household will be notified in writing of the change of status and will be asked to leave the Village.

Appeals
a) Villagers may appeal an Incident Report at the weekly Village Meeting. In cases of expulsion, the appeal may include actions for addressing the problematic behavior that caused their expulsion rather than disputing the incident. A majority vote will either uphold or revise the decision.
b) Appeal Process:
a. Council reads the incident report and informs the Village of their decision.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

17 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
b. Accused has a chance to respond and state their case. c. Village has a chance to ask questions of the accused. d. Accused leaves the room.
e. Village has an opportunity to discuss the details of the incident. In the interest of time, each person may be limited to one chance to speak unless there is a direct response.
f. A motion is made to move to vote on whether to “uphold” or “revise” the Council decision.
g. If a majority vote to revise, a new motion should be made stating a desired revision.

The Termination Process
Clients will be asked to leave the program whenever an assessment verifies one of the following conditions:

1. Client has successfully completed program or is no longer homeless

2. Client has failed to engage or comply with program requirements (e.g., following suspension)

3. Client and/or household no longer wish to be enrolled in the program Clients exiting the program will meet with a Case Manager to complete the exit paperwork and complete an exit survey. At the time of exit, the Case Manager will remove the participant and/or household from active status in HMIS and update service notes with interview outcomes.

The SAVS Staff Manager will contact the client(s) to set up an exit interview, which will include a member of the IRT team and head of household. The exit interview will include a review of the history and record successes, areas for improvement, outstanding issues and suggestions for ongoing services, including referrals or transfers to other programs.

The participant will be given an exit questionnaire and envelope. Following the exit interview, HMIS will be updated by the Case Manager with a note of the interview outcomes, and the participant household will be asked to leave the program.

Section XIl – Other Village Policies
Fire & Safety Plan
The following firefighting and fire protection regulations will be strictly enforced.

No fires will be permitted within the safe parking lot
No open flames are permitted within the housing units.

Residents shall report a fire or other emergency to 9-1-1 through the use of a personal cell phone.

Prior to fire seasons, there will be a review of the evacuation plan at a Village Council meeting.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

18 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Residents will be notified of a fire or other emergency by word of mouth, and if necessary, will evacuate based on the Emergency Evacuation Plan below. All new residents are to be informed on this during the orientation process.

Emergency Evacuation Plan
Prior to opening a Safe Parking Site, SAVS Program Coordinator will become familiar with all relevant County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) protocols. To ensure evacuation preparedness, SAVS will submit to County staff and the EOC a report on the site that includes: its opening date, site map, estimated number of residents, and a copy of this Evacuation Plan. Additional evacuation plans will be prepared for sites with particular vulnerabilities.

1. The most vulnerable residents will be identified when they are assigned a space in the Safe Parking Lot. After confirmation of a necessary Evacuation from Senior Staff and/or First Responders, our first priority will be to locate and help load residents who are the most elderly, have mobility issues, and/or serious health conditions.

2. Assist Vulnerable residents into Vehicles: SAVS staff and Security will confirm locations of SAVS Vans AND personal vehicles. And load the most vulnerable residents FIRST, then additional residents until vehicles are full. Residents are allowed to Bring ESSENTIAL belongings/medication ONLY! (one small backpack/bag per person, with a bottle of drinking water if accessible). Be mindful of dogs/pets that should NOT be in the same vehicle together.

3. Evacuate site: remaining residents and staff will exit in carpools in personal vehicles and proceed to an area designated by County Emergency Operations Center.

4. Clear the Site, Final Evacuation Check: One staff member is to remain on-site with the Site Coordinator, (unless there is an immediate threat to the life safety of staff) to ensure that each vehicle is checked (Break down doors if necessary), and bathrooms and common areas for persons and animals. First Responders will likely be on-site to assist with the final check.

Pet Policy
Service Animals and pets are honored as an important part of residents’ lives. The limited capacity of the Village to support only a small number of such animals is also honored.

Consequently, the following Pet Policies have been adopted:
a) Service Animals are welcome at SAVS. A doctor’s prescription for a service dog must be shown. If someone with a service dog does not have a prescription, they may seek assistance from SAVS in locating a doctor to assess the need and prescribe a service animal.
b) There will be a maximum number of dogs at any lot at any one time, including therapy dogs but not service dogs. Space for dogs is on a first come, first served basis. c) All pets must be tagged with ID as required by local regulations. d) Aggressive dogs which are not controlled by the owner; dogs off-leash or animal waste left on the ground will trigger the disciplinary process.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

19 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Abandonment Policy
Village residents who have been continuously absent from the Village and have made no effort to remain in contact for a period of 7 days have abandoned their dwelling. Said persons will no longer be a Villager and their possessions will be removed from their previous dwelling immediately upon the dwelling being declared abandoned. They will then have a period of 30 days to retrieve their possessions after which time those items will be disposed of at Village discretion.

A car/vehicle will also be considered abandoned if a resident is spending less than 8 out of 14 nights at the lot without staff approval, or if the resident is continuously absent for a period of 7 days without communication with the appropriate staff member. SAVS will attempt to secure the vehicle but, due to space limitations, it may have to be towed and destroyed.

Village Volunteer Responsibility Policy
All villagers are required to sign up to share in the duty of cleaning the village bathrooms, shower and laundry area. Garbage clean-up is required also.

Section XIIl –Evaluation and Assessment
Program Assessment and Key Performance Indicators
● Number and percent of residents who report that their immediate shelter needs were met ● Number and percent of residents who remain in the village for more than a year ● Number and percent of residents who develop and begin executing their service/treatment plan by the end of their 60th day in the village.
● Number and percent of residents who report an improvement in life skills, self-sufficiency, education/training, substance abuse problems, mental health status, housing needs, and physical health
● Number and percent of residents who move to conventional permanent housing, or home with a family or friend because it is their choice and who maintain safe and stable housing for 6 months after leaving the village
● Number and percent of residents who either gain employment or increase their income Tracking Program Long Term Goals
SAVS will track each onsite client with the long-term goal of helping clients achieve permanent housing. SAVS will report on these metrics:
● Number of clients in RVs, cars and using overnight parking. ● Number of clients connected to new employment.
● Number of clients connected to public benefits.
● Number of clients that had an increase in income.
● Number of total clients served.
● Number of clients provided with outreach.
● Number of clients on the coordinated entry wait list
● Number of client referrals to crisis services, indoor shelters, and counseling ● Number and type of client exits
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

20 SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
Modification of SAVS Operations Manual
Modifications to this manual may be made upon a majority vote by the SAVS Board of Directors. All content changes will be supplied to any contractors of SAVS services.

Acknowledgement
Deep gratitude for the Safe Parking Program Manual from New Beginnings of Santa Barbara.

New Beginnings Counseling Center
324 E. Carrillo Street, Suite C
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Office: (805) 845-8492 ext. 108
Fax: (805) 845-8493
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

1 SITE SPECIFIC TERMS – 845 GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH, SEBASTOPOL Amendments and Additions Specific to this Site.

These provisions supersede any conflicting provisions in the SAVS Operations Manual.

Preliminary Provisions
This section is new. There are no related Operations Manual provisions.

1. SAVS Role: SAVS will provide, open, and operate an RV Village with wrap around services within Sebastopol City limits, to serve Sebastopol’s unhoused, for the term 1/01/2022 to 12/31/2022. SAVS will act as the operator of the RV Village. SAVS will submit reports, participate in status update meetings, and identify needs and challenges for the RV Village. SAVS will provide basic sanitary and water facilities, a waste management system, security and whole-person-care support for the residents.

2. Community Served: This site will serve the Sebastopol vehicular unhoused only.

Selection for the site will be based on seniority, meaning the amount of time living (in a vehicle or otherwise) continuously in Sebastopol.

3. Supplemental Documents: SAVS will provide CITY with the following documents by no later than the date when the Village is open to RVs, and will resubmit these when there is any significant revision: SAVS Operations Manual, Intake Packet, SAVS Grievance Form, SAVS Policies and Procedures, Disciplinary & Grievance Process, Resident Agreement, Consent to Exchange/Release of Information, Fire and Safety Plan, Emergency Evacuation Plan, Incident Report, and any other documents relevant to the operations of the Village.

4. Quarterly Reports: SAVS will report quarterly to CITY’s City Council. The report will include a written summary provided in advance of the meeting, with a verbal presentation provided at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The report will contain the following:
a. Data on enrolled individuals at the RV Village based on HMIS data. b. A narrative statement containing descriptions of security incidents or those requiring Police Department involvement at the RV Village including interventions used to address issues.
c. Reports of conflicts or complaints from neighbors in the surrounding area, including a description of the resolution.
d. Challenges related to the physical shelter environment to be addressed by SAVS, the property owner, or other involved agencies or individuals. e. A narrative description of the ongoing development of programmatic offerings at the RV Village.
f. A report on the status of any issues reported in the previous Quarterly Report that were not resolved at the time of that previous Quarterly Report, including updates on any resolution.
g. A description of significant safety or rule violations and all instances of physical violence.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

2 h. A report on neighbor and community outreach engaged in by SAVS during the Quarter, including any specific important outstanding issues.

5. Incident Reports: SAVS will submit incident reports to CITY for significant rule violations (those that could lead to temporary or permanent suspension from the Village) by residents within five (5) calendar days, clearly stating; the date of the incident, the individual(s) involved, the nature of the incident, a description of staff intervention, client response, and a plan for follow-up or resolution.

6. RV Village Resident List: SAVS will provide to CITY as soon as possible, but in no event later than January 3, 2022, a full list of the proposed RV Villagers who will be moving into the RV Village. The list will include license plate numbers for the lived-in vehicles as well as any transport vehicles. The City will retain that list as a confidential document protected by the right to privacy, not to be disclosed except for confirmation of resident authority to reside at the Village. SAVS will promptly inform CITY of any change in the resident list.

7. Registered Sex Offenders: SAVS will determine through an independent reliable process approved by CITY that no residents of the Village are registered sex offenders. SAVS agrees to provide CITY with information needed to confirm that no residents or regular visitors to the Village are registered sex offenders. It will be SAVS responsibility to obtain any releases required to allow this information to be provided. The City will retain the confidentiality of the information, and will use it only for the purposes of confirming that no registered sex offenders are on site in the Village.

8. Qualified Personnel (Info to City): Sonoma Applied Village Services (SAVS) will provide all necessary qualified personnel needed for the RV Village. There will be an onsite resident manager who lives in the village. Additionally, SAVS will establish a 3- person resident management team that will interface with residents to ensure that health and safety protocols are followed and that interpersonal issues are resolved. They will be assisted by the SAVS full time program manager. SAVS will provide SEBASTOPOL with names and brief biographical summaries for all those in key leadership positions at the RV Village, including at minimum the Village project manager, the on-site manager, and the employees providing client services and operations oversight.

9. Site Set-up, Improvement, Maintenance: The City of Sebastopol will have no responsibility for site set up, improvements, or maintenance of the Village. This work will be the responsibility of SAVS. The City recognizes that the property owner has made a commitment to take responsibility for these tasks but making and enforcing those obligations will be the responsibility of SAVS.

10. City Agencies: Opening of the Village will be subject to the approval of the Sebastopol Fire Department, Planning Department, Public Works, Police Department and/or any other relevant City departments.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

3 11. Transportation of RVs: SAVS will have responsibility for transporting RVs or other lived-in vehicles in or out of the Village, including any associated cost. SAVS’s responsibility will specifically extend to removal of any RVs abandoned at the site and will include the obligation to tow them to an appropriate location and/or to destroy them as needed.

12. West County Community Services (WCCS): SAVS will continue to coordinate with WCCS as it does currently, so that the residents of the Village can get the benefit of the outreach services WCCS is obligated to provide all unhoused in Sebastopol, as provided in the contract between CITY and WCCS.

13. Obligations to Property Owner: SAVS will comply with all agreements it enters into with the property owner.

14. Neighbor Relations: SAVS recognizes as a specific goal for this site the following: the development and maintenance of a continuing productive and engaged relationship with immediate neighbors and with the greater Sebastopol community, with the intention of meeting and responding to the needs and concerns of the immediate neighbors and greater Sebastopol community.

15. Community Advisory Committee: SAVS recognizes that success of the Village will require supportive and engaged community involvement. SAVS will organize and meet regularly with a Community Advisory Committee that will assist in monitoring activities at the Village and reporting to the larger neighborhood of interest. This Community Advisory Council will meet as frequently as the Community Advisory Committee feels is needed, but at minimum once each month. SAVS will have a representative present for all meetings. The City Council will make available a representative to attend the meetings.

16. Sebastopol Charter School: SAVS recognizes the particular sensitivity of the school community less than a half mile from the site. SAVS will meet specifically with school representatives and will follow up and address their concerns and needs throughout the existence of the RV Village.

17. Support Local: SAVS will “shop local,” in purchasing supplies and equipment for the Village, supporting local businesses as much as possible and economical.

Introduction
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provision.

1. Number of Vehicles: This lot is just under a full acre. SAVS will accommodate 20-22 lived-in vehicles on the site, with up to 35 residents, plus the transportation and trailertowing vehicles owned by the residents, as well as any vehicles for guests, employees, or others visiting the site. If, at some time, SAVS feels the Village has built the capacity to accommodate more residents this number may be expanded after discussion with the Community Advisory Committee and City Staff. The number of vehicles and residents will not be greater than provided here without written advance approval from CITY.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

4 SAVS Foundational Statements
Operations Manual provisions apply; there are no Site-Specific provisions.

Overview of Safe Parking Village Operations
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provisions.

1. Overnight Parking: This site will not offer overnight parking. This will be an exclusively 24/7 site.

2. Security: This site will offer an initial 30 day period of 24/7 paid professional security.

After the expiration of this initial period, SAVS will provide night-time security to coincide with curfew hours (10pm to 6am) Additional security needs will be jointly determined by SAVS and CITY, based on a review of the incident reports to date, and on input from the Community Advisory Committee and the Village Resident Council. SAVS goal will be to provide ongoing security as necessary for the safety of the Village residents and those in the neighborhood. In the event of any disagreement regarding security, SAVS will accept the decision of CITY. CITY accepts and understands that SAVS has allocated $75,000 to security, and that if security expenses exceed this amount, SAVS may need to close the RV Village earlier than originally planned. SAVS will give CITY advance notice (at least 60 days) before making a final decision. The intent of this notice is to give CITY and SAVS the opportunity to discuss possible options for preventing the early closure of the RV Village, if costs for security are exceeding budgetary resources to the degree that the RV Village may need to close earlier than December 31, 2022.

3. Curfew: The gates will be locked from 10 pm to 6 am. Residents will be expected to remain in the Village during these hours. Residents who are outside the Village during these hours will be allowed re-entry, but this will be considered a violation of the rules of the Village. Residents who exhibit a pattern of violating curfew will be referred to the disciplinary system. Generally, 3 instances will be considered a pattern requiring referral.

An exception will be made for Village residents who have job obligations or other commitments that require their absence during these hours. These night-time departures and returns must be pre-approved by the Village management. An accurate written record will be maintained by security of any departures and returns during curfew time.

4. Health and Social Services: SAVS will provide access to basic healthcare, including COVID testing and vaccinations, through the Sonoma County Health Clinics.

5. Emotional, Physical and Life Support : SAVS will coordinate with other outreach and support workers to bring needed services to the site. SAVS will invite and include local and County support groups to assist residents in accessing services.

6. Covid Safety Protocols: SAVS will establish and enforce protocols as necessary in compliance with applicable rules and regulations regarding Covid 19 and variants.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

6 1. Fence: SAVS will be responsible for installation of a fence that encloses the entire perimeter of the property, 6 feet high with a 2-foot lattice at the top. The fence must be a visual and physical barrier, to provide security and privacy for the residents of the Village as well as neighboring properties. The City recognizes that the property owner has made a commitment to take responsibility for fencing, but making and enforcing those obligations will be the responsibility of SAVS.

2. Gate: SAVS will limit regular entrance and exit to one gate that will be monitored by SAVS. A second gate is allowed under this Agreement and will be set up in consultation with the Sebastopol fire department. With their permission, the second gate will be used for entry or exit of RVs, emergencies, and as needed for delivery of supplies (when the main gate is unavailable). It will otherwise remain locked. (Please see curfew rules above.)

3. Neighborhood Relations: For this site, excellent relationships with the neighbors and the community at large are essential. Please see discussion of the Community Advisory Committee above.

4. Charter School: SAVS will take particular care regarding safety and security of the children attending Sebastopol Charter School, which is less than a half mile from the Site.

Residents will be required to remain off the school property at all times (the school grounds are private property subject to no trespassing rules) and will be reminded specifically of the concerns all children and parents have about their children interacting with strangers. As strangers to these children, residents will be reminded to not linger near the school, and will be encouraged to give the children and their families space whenever possible on sidewalks, the Joe Rodota trail, and elsewhere in town. Trespassing on the school property will be a violation of Village rules and will be referred to the disciplinary system. Depending on the severity of the violation, it could result in temporary or permanent suspension from the Village. This is a particularly serious concern for the success of Village.

Resident Self-Governance
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provisions.

1. Offenses that Require Immediate Expulsion: Possession of guns, firearms, and weapons of any kind; violence; drug dealing; and open fires are not permitted. Registered sex offenders are not allowed to reside in the Village. These offences result in immediate expulsion. There will be no access to the disciplinary system, grievance process, or appeal in these cases.

Resident Selection
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provisions.

1. Lived-In Vehicles: Lived-in vehicles must be in operating order or be registered as “not operational” with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. (DMV).

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

7 2. Transportation Vehicles: Vehicles used for transportation must be operational, registered with the DMV, and have automobile insurance. The resident drivers must have a current driver’s license.

Case Management to Permanent Housing
Operations Manual provisions apply; there are no Site-Specific provisions.

Connecting Residents to Assistance
Operations Manual provisions apply, there are no Site-Specific provisions.

Resident Rights and Responsibilities
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provisions.

1. Good Neighbor Policy: SAVS will develop a good neighbor policy in conjunction with the Community Advisory Committee and the Village Council. Littering outside the camp, hanging out in front of nearby shops and/or unwanted behavior toward individual neighbors are among the actions that may be prohibited.

2. Criminal conduct: Criminal conduct of any kind on or outside the boundaries of the site will be referred to the grievance system and/or the Sebastopol Police Department.

3. Neighbor Concerns: Complaints or concerns of neighbors or the greater Sebastopol community will be referred to the disciplinary or grievance system, as appropriate, with resulting consequences, including possible expulsion.

Resident Agreements and Liability Waivers
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provision.

1. Indemnification: SAVS shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its agents, officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, damages, injury, and/or liability (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), incurred by reason of any negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission of SAVS, its officers, agents, employees and subcontractors, or any of them, under or in connection with this Agreement; and SAVS agrees at its own cost, expense and risk to defend any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought or instituted against City, its agents, officers, officials, employees and volunteers, or any of them, arising out of such negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission, and to pay and satisfy any resulting judgments.

Intervention Plans and Disciplinary Procedures
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provisions.

1. West County Community Services (WCCS): SAVS will coordinate with WCCS, if possible, when suspension or eviction is being considered for a resident. The intent of this is that WCCS can collaborate with the resident and SAVS to arrange alternate shelter options.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

8 2. Police: SAVS will coordinate with the Sebastopol Police Department if a resident refuses to leave after they are required to leave, temporarily or permanently. SAVS will be prepared to treat any refusal to leave as a criminal trespass.

3. Imminent Threat to Others: SAVS will notify the Police Department of any resident who is an imminent threat to others.

Other Village Policies
Operations Manual provisions apply, plus the following Site-Specific provisions.

1. Safety and Evacuation Plans: These will be submitted to CITY for review and approval prior to the Village being occupied by residents. SAVS will detail in the evacuation plans how the trailers that need towing will be removed expeditiously from the site, and the exact location to which they’ll be removed.

2. Pets: SAVS will conduct ongoing observations and assessments of animals residing with residents at the RV Village. SAVS will coordinate with Sonoma County Animal Services or other similar programs for supplies for animals such as food, medicine, waste bags, leashes, and in some cases, muzzles.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

9 Site Location – 845 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

1 of 3

HORIZON SHINE VILLAGE

VILLAGER RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
All Villagers are expected to comply with the following rules and regulations of the Horizon Shine Village and with any agreements they sign upon intake.

Horizon Shine Village Rules
Quiet time: 10:00 pm – 8:00 am
Villagers must log in and out of the Village between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am The following activities are prohibited, and infractions will be referred to the Disciplinary System:
• Public use of alcohol and/or drugs
• Creating a public disturbance
• Urinating and defecating on the Village property or in surrounding neighborhoods • Use of tarps to cover exterior objects (Exceptions may be made for roof leak prevention)
• Cooking outside the vehicle or in vehicles with unsafe cooking systems • Trash or random property outside the vehicle
• Music or other noise which disturbs neighbors
• Aggressive dogs which are not controlled by the owner; dogs off-leash or animal waste left on the ground
• Parking on nearby streets or in nearby parking lots
• Trespassing on private property, including schools
• Loitering at public businesses, in public locations, or near schools Possession of guns, firearms, open fires, and weapons of any kind; commitment of acts of violence; and drug dealing are not permitted. Anyone committing these offences will be asked to leave the premises permanently. There is no appeal in these cases.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

2 of 3
Vehicles
Lived-in vehicles must be registered and in operating order, or be registered as “not operational” with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. (DMV).

Vehicles used for transportation must be operational, registered with the DMV, and have automobile insurance. The villager drivers must have a current driver’s license.

Work Requirement
All villagers are responsible for required work in the Village at a minimum of six hours each week, cleaning the Village bathrooms, shower, and laundry area. Garbage clean-up is required also.

Meeting Requirement
All villagers are required to attend the monthly Village meeting.

Pet Policy
Service Animals and pets are honored as an important part of villagers’ lives. The limited capacity of the Village to support only a small number of such animals is also honored.

Consequently, the following Pet Policies have been adopted:
• Service Animals are welcome at SAVS. A doctor’s prescription for a service dog must be shown. If someone with a service dog does not have a prescription, they may seek assistance from SAVS in locating a doctor to assess the need and prescribe a service animal.
• There will be a maximum number of dogs at any lot at any one time, including therapy dogs but not service dogs. Space for dogs is on a first come, first served basis.
• All pets must be tagged with ID as required by local regulations. • Aggressive dogs which are not controlled by the owner; dogs off-leash or animal waste left on the ground will trigger the disciplinary process.

Vehicle Abandonment Policy
Villagers who have been continuously absent from the Village and have made no effort to remain in contact for a period of 7 days have abandoned their dwelling-vehicle. Said persons will no longer be a Villager and their vehicle will be locked. They will then have a period of 30 days to retrieve their vehicle and possessions. After 30 days, those items will be disposed of at Village discretion.

In any given two-week period, a car/vehicle will also be considered abandoned if a villager is spending less than 7 nights at the lot without staff approval. This also applies if the villager is continuously absent for a period of 7 days without communication with the appropriate staff member. SAVS will attempt to secure the vehicle but, due to space limitations, it may have to be towed and potentially destroyed.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

3 of 3
I __________________________ (print name here) have read the rules and policies provided, and do hereby understand, acknowledge and accept these rules and policies as written above. I’m joining this community voluntarily. I further acknowledge and accept this is temporary emergency shelter and shall not be construed as a tenancy or giving rise to a tenancy. I agree and acknowledge that violating any of these rules will put me at risk of expulsion from this community.

I attest that I intend to join this emergency shelter community as a member of the community and I pledge to always act in good faith towards my follow guests, staff, volunteers, security, and surrounding neighbors.

Guest (Printed Name) ___________________________
Guest (Signature) _______________________________ Date_____________________ Staff Witness (printed name) _________________________
Staff Witness (signature) _____________________________ Date____________________ Two copies: One for Villager, One for file

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

EXHIBIT B

FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Temporary Use Permit for a
24-7 Safe Recreational Vehicle/Vehicle Parking Site
845 Gravenstein Highway North
APN 060-261-030; File 2022-73

1. The Use shall be in substantial conformance with the proposed operations as described in the application materials prepared by Sonoma Applied Villages (SAVS), and received on September 22, 2022, and on file at the City of Sebastopol Planning Department, except as modified herein:
a) Enhance coordination with Police for monitoring area surrounding site as a neighborhood watch function.
b) Provide quarterly reports to the Planning Commission as a regular agenda item. c) SAVS shall plan for the transition of residents at the end of the program. Reports on this plan shall begin on the 5th quarterly report at the latest.

2. This use is authorized to continue for two years commencing January 1, 2023 and ending December 31, 2024. This use is an interim use only, and shall not be allowed to be a permanent use on the site.

3. All operating conditions and requirements contained within Exhibit “A”, the Sonoma Applied Village Services “SAVS 24-7 Safe Parking Operations Manual” dated December 3, 2021, and the “Village Rules and Responsibilities”, dated September 22, 2022, shall be maintained for the duration of the operations.

The Applicant shall forward any substantial modification to its program, policies, or procedures to the Planning Department for review and approval by City staff. If City staff determines that any of these modifications are not in substantial conformance with the Use Permit, those changes shall require an Amendment to the Use Permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission through the public hearing process.

4. SAVS shall continue to conduct resident outreach program and neighborhood outreach programs on an ongoing basis.

5. The City of Sebastopol and its agents, officers and employees shall be defended, indemnified, and held harmless from any claim, action or proceedings against the City, or its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application or the environmental determination which accompanies it, or which otherwise arises out of or in connection with the City’s action on this application, including but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, or expert witness fees.

6. The Planning Director shall interpret applicable requirements in the event of any redundancy or conflict in conditions of approval.

7. This approval does not include any signs. Any new signs that will identify the use of this property are subject to the prior approval of the Design Review Board or City staff, as appropriate.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

EXHIBIT C

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Temporary Use Permit for a
24-7 Safe Recreational Vehicle/Vehicle Parking Site
845 Gravenstein Highway North
APN 060-261-030; File 2022-73

1. All plans shall include a brief description of the project on the cover sheet.

2. All submitted building permit plan check sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these conditions of approval.

3. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, the plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be in substantial conformance to those approved by the review body. If any changes are made to submitted plans which were approved by the review body the applicant shall work with the Planning Department to determine if the changes are significant enough to once again be seen by the review body, or if staff can approve the changes. Any changes that have not been approved by Planning staff are not approved. Construction or demolition work that does not conform to the Planning approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.

4. Site landscaping shall be generally consistent with the Landscape Plan included as part of “Exhibit A” on file with the Sebastopol Planning Department. The final landscape plan shall be stamped by a licensed landscape architect and filed with the Planning Department prior to occupancy. Plans for any irrigation of the site shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. All planting shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy of the proposed project. Upon the request of an Applicant to receive a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and at discretion of the Planning Director, landscape installation may be suitably guaranteed by posting a cash bond equal to l00% of the cost and installation of any landscape improvements.

5. Acceptance of the construction drawings and specifications does not release the applicant and owner from correction of mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein. If, during the course of construction, the field conditions or other previously unknown conditions require a modification or a departure from the accepted plans, the applicant shall provide the modifications or departure and specify the correction of mistakes errors, or omissions in compliance with the CBC and City Standards.

6. The City of Sebastopol and its agents, officers and employees shall be defended, indemnified, and held harmless from any claim, action or proceedings against the City, or its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application or the environmental determination which accompanies it, or which otherwise arises out of or in connection with the City’s action on this application, including but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, or expert witness fees.

7. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to the City as part of the Building Permit and/or Grading Permit and shall be incorporated into the plans, unless waived by staff. The City’s CMP template, provided by the Planning Department, may be used for small, infill projects. Revisions to the CMP to increase or add on time to the construction timeline shall be coordinated with the Building Official and any additional requests will be at the applicant’s responsibility.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

This CMP shall be a binding document. Failure to adhere to the CMP may result in a “Stop Work Notice” being placed on the project. An electronic copy of the APPROVED CMP shall be submitted to the City, and may be posted to the city’s website. The CMP shall be updated as project conditions warrant. Updates to the CMP shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The CMP shall include but not be limited to:
a) Work schedule (start of construction date, road or lane closure intent/dates, important milestones and proposed final dates)
b) Construction Hours
c) Travel routes and turn-around locations with staff approval • Impact to state highways
d) Road and/or lane closures (Applicant to provide information on how many anticipated road closures, and the reasons for each road closure). e) Worker auto parking space locations/construction parking f) Phasing (if applicable)
g) If construction improvements are located in areas of slopes 15% or greater, the Contractor shall provide safe temporary hard surface stair access to the improvements, unless waived by the Building Official. This access shall be shown on the CMP.
h) Projects that require a grading permit shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance.

The CMP may be more stringent if the project is located close to schools or in impacted neighborhoods. A CMP may be required to be modified if a neighborhood becomes “impacted” during the course of the construction. Impacted neighborhoods are defined as areas in geographic proximity (i.e. using the same streets for access) with a significant number of simultaneous construction projects.

The hours of construction activity shall be limited 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with staff approval, depending on scope of work being done, or unless modified by a project’s Specific Conditions of Approval.

A24-inch by 36-inch weatherproof copy with items A-F posted on site. The remaining Construction Management Plan shall be made available on site. The Construction Management Plan shall be posted on the site as part of the job site signage and should include:
a) Address of the project site.
b) Permitted hours of construction and of deliveries/off-haul. c) Name, e-mail address and direct phone number of the General Contractor. d) Name, e-mail address and direct phone number of the person responsible for managing theproject.
e) Name and direct phone number of the party to call in case of an emergency. f) City of Sebastopol Building Department (707-823-8597).

8. All construction materials, debris and equipment shall be stored on site. If that is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to placing any construction materials, debris, debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. The fee for using the right-of-way for storage of construction materials or equipment is $10.00 per day. A minimum of 11’ passable auto traffic clearance (paved travel way) shall be maintained at all times along the roadway. The placing of portable restroom facilities in the City right-of-way will not be Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

permitted.

9. All portions of the job site shall be maintained in an organized and professional condition. All trash, debris, construction scraps and broken/deteriorated machinery shall be removed from the site by the end of each week. If off loaded construction materials are not used within 2 weeks, they shall be screened from public view. All sidewalks, driveways and public/private roadways fronting the subject site shall be broom cleaned at the end of each business day.

10. A pre-construction meeting is required with city staff for projects that:
a) Require a City encroachment permit, a Caltrans encroachment permit, or a City grading permit; or
b) Have 5 dwelling units or more; or
c) Have a total of 5,000 square feet of building or more; or d) Have a creek setback requirement; or
e) Are required to have a pre-construction meeting under a specific condition of approval.

11. All permits and/or inspection fees required shall be paid in full prior to final occupancy being granted unless otherwise stipulated by the City.

12. All required construction signage and any required tree-protection shall be posted and available for City inspection at the time of the Pre-construction meeting or, if no preconstruction meeting is required, prior to commencing construction. If these measures are not in place at the time of the pre-construction meeting, a re- inspection fee will be required, and issuance of building permit will be delayed.

13. The Planning Director shall interpret applicable requirements in the event of any redundancy or conflict in conditions of approval.

Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval:

14. This approval is valid for a period of three (3) years during which time the rights granted must be exercised. However, the applicant may request one (1) one-year extension of this Use Permit from the Planning Director, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §17.400.100.

15. The light source for all exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded from adjacent properties. Cut sheets for all exterior lighting shall be submitted as part of the Design Review or other planning application.

16. For projects with new foundations or retaining walls less than 10’ away from a required setback property lines shall be physically identified (string line or equal), and the applicant shall submit a letter or certificate from a licensed surveyor that confirms that the structure complies with the approved setbacks prior to placing the foundation. For any project that includes new foundations or retaining walls more than 10’ away from a required setback, the applicant may apply for a waiver from this requirement from the City Engineer and Planning Department.

17. For any project that includes new structures within 2 feet of the allowed height limit, a letter or certificate from a surveyor confirming that the height of the roof complies with Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

the approved plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the earliest point possible.

18. All landscape and irrigation plans must be designed in accordance with the most current City of Sebastopol landscape requirements. Prior to providing water service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the Planning Department must review and approve the project’s working drawings for planting and irrigation systems. Any question regarding the City of Sebastopol current water conservation and Landscape Ordinance should be directed to the Planning Department.

New construction and rehabilitated (renovations or changes made to sites with an existing irrigation system) landscape projects will be affected by these requirements if the altered landscape area is greater than 500 square feet.

19. For any new housing unit development, the developer/owner shall submit the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final inspection.

Engineering and Public Works Department Standard Conditions of Approval:

20. All projects are subject to Impact Fees as adopted by the City Council, which are due at the time of issuance of the Building Permit unless otherwise stipulated by the City.

21. An Encroachment Permit is required from the Public Works Department for any and all work within the public right-of-way. If the work is within a CalTrans right-of way, an Encroachment Permit from CalTrans shall also be procured by the applicant.

Encroachment Permit shall not be issued until the City Engineer approves the applicant’s site improvement plans.

22. Construction within the public right-of-way is limited to that necessary to support the lot's use. This may include but is not limited to: driveways, sidewalks and any utility connections. For all improvements within the public right of way, the applicant shall submit plans to adequately describe the work. Plans shall include but not be limited to drainage details, cross-sections, driveway/roadway grades and utility locations as necessary.

23. The applicant shall prepare and submit site improvement plans for the construction of all improvements including water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, water quality facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, elevated or structural pedestrian walkways, landscaping, landscape irrigation, signing, striping, joint trench and streetlights. All design and construction shall conform to the latest edition of the City of Sebastopol Design and Construction Standards and other applicable codes, standards, guidelines and specifications. Public improvement drawings shall be drafted in the City-approved sheet format.

24. Once approved by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit PDF files of the signed improvement plans. As-Built record drawings shall also be submitted as PDF files.

25. Deviations from City Standards and applicable Code requirements shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant’s engineer shall request all design exceptions in writing.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

26. Any improvements, public or private, damaged during construction shall be replaced, by the applicant, in-kind or with new improvements. All cracked, broken, or uplifted sidewalk, driveway and/or curb and gutter fronting the property shall be replaced.

Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department prior to the first submittal of project improvement plans to identify the extents and limits of replacement.

27. An erosion and sediment control plan are required as part of the building permit application. The plan shall be prepared by a certified erosion control specialist and in full compliance with CASQA standards, The plan is subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the building or grading permit. No modifications to the approved plans shall be made without approval of the City Engineer.

28. Mailbox plans and locations shall be approved by the Sebastopol Postmaster prior to improvement plan approval. The developer shall provide a letter and exhibit showing mailbox locations from the Sebastopol Postmaster approving mailbox locations.

29. City Public Water and Sewer and Drainage utility easements as required by the City Engineer utility companies shall be provided within the development. Easement locations shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

Roadway Improvements:

30. The improvement plans for the first phase of development shall include and provide for the construction of all offsite improvements as required to support full project buildout. Each subsequent phase of development shall construct sufficient onsite roadway and utility improvements to support the cumulative development proposed to be constructed as approved by the City Engineer.

31. Road closures, if permitted by the Project Approval, will only be permitted with prior authorization from the Public Works Department consistent with the City's road closure policy. Signs containing details of the proposed closure must be posted 48 hours in advance. Coordinate road closures with the Sebastopol Public Works Department.

Contact the Public Works Department at 707-823-5331 to obtain a road closure permit.

32. An emergency vehicle access, meeting the requirements of the Sebastopol Fire Department shall be constructed.

33. All private driveway areas less than 24-foot wide shall require the approval of the Sebastopol Fire Department.

34. Sidewalk warps shall be provided to allow a clear five-foot walkway at all locations, including areas where mailboxes, street furniture, streetlights, street signs and fire hydrants are to be installed, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

35. The structural section of all public road improvements shall be designed using a soil investigation which provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. A copy of Geotechnical report and structural section calculations shall be submitted with the first improvement plan check.

36. The structural section of the private on-site drive aisles and parking areas shall meet the requirements and recommendations of the geotechnical report for the project.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

37. Retaining walls and retaining curbs may be required to protect damage to trees as determined by a licensed Arborist. All retaining structures shall be designed and constructed to minimize damage to trees.

38. Pedestrian curb ramps, meeting City standards and current accessibility requirements, shall be provided at all intersections and crosswalks where sidewalks are proposed.

Drainage Improvements:

39. All project related flooding impacts shall be mitigated by the project developer.

Drainage improvements shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California in accordance with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Flood Management Design Manual (FMDM). Public and private drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans and the City Engineer may require the applicant to acquire the review and recommendations by the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) prior to approval by the City Engineer. Private storm drain easements will be required for any portions of the private storm drain not entirely located with the lot being served or for any portion of a private utility located on an adjacent parcel.

40. No lot-to-lot drainage will be allowed between the project site and any adjacent parcels. No concentrated drainage may discharge across sidewalks. All site drains must be connected to the public storm drain system or discharged through the face of curb or to an established waterway.

41. Plans and certifications shall demonstrate compliance of all improvements, including building finished floor elevations, with the City's Flood Ordinance, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer. Building finished floor elevations shall be constructed at a minimum of 2 foot above the 100-year storm event water surface elevation as determined by the City and certified by the project engineer. The Engineer of Record shall provide a signed and stamped letter indicating the project meets the requirements of the Ordinance before plan approval.

Stormwater Quality:

42. Projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are subject to design and construction requirements of the most recent edition of City of Sebastopol Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual.

Improvement plans with required LID design features shall be approved by the City Engineer.

43. Projects that will disturb 1.0 acre or more of developed or undeveloped land shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been submitted by the applicant and received by the State Water Resources Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Two copies of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City prior to issuing a grading permit, encroachment permit, or building permit.

44. For required LID features constructed on private property or on street frontage, the owner shall provide a Declaration Letter to the City Manager regarding the owner’s commitment to ongoing maintenance of said LID features (LID Declaration) prior to occupancy.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Grading:

45. The improvement plans shall include a site-grading plan prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California as part of the required improvement drawings. Lots shall be generally designed to drain to public and private streets or parking areas, unless otherwise approved in the interest of tree preservation or other unusual circumstances.

46. The City of Sebastopol shall require a grading permit for projects that meet these requirements.
a) Cut or fill exceeding 50 cubic yards
b) Cut or fill greater than 3 feet in depth
c) Cut creating a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height and steeper than 2 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical
d) Fill intended to support a structure or surcharge greater than 1 foot in depth or placed on terrain with a natural slope steeper than 15 percent

47. When required by the Building Official the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, a detailed Geotechnical Report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of California. The grading plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Report.

48. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered during grading operations are different from those anticipated in the Geotechnical Report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.

It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.

49. Existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks that are defective or will no longer be in use shall be permanently destroyed or removed under permit and inspection by the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department, Well and Septic Division and/or Sonoma County Environmental Health or other designated agency. Underground fuel storage tanks are subject to UST regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board.

50. The grading plan shall clearly show all existing survey monuments and property corners and shall state that they shall be protected and preserved. Should monuments be damaged or destroyed during construction, they shall be replaced by the developer.

51. Improvements plans shall include an erosion control (winterization) plan. The plan shall include an order of work and staging/scheduling component indicating when facilities must be installed and when they may be removed.

52. Sewer services and laterals shall be CCTV inspected to determine if the service needs to be removed and replaced. A copy of the CCTV report shall be provided to the City Engineer. A waiver for CCTV inspection may be waived by the City Engineer, if the sewer lateral has been replaced within ten years of the submittal of the improvement plans. A copy of the documentation evidencing such replacement shall be included in the submittal package.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

53. If the proposed project is located in or adjacent to a waterway, within an area designated as habitat for threatened or endangered species, or other special status area, it possibly falls under the jurisdiction of another agency such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control, or the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, etc. These agencies shall be contacted to determine if the project lies within their respective jurisdictions. All necessary permits and/or approvals shall be obtained prior to the City issuing any permits. If permits are not required, a letter stating so shall be submitted to the City as part of the record.

54. Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according to Section 8.12 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code. Trees and shrubs shall be kept trimmed so that the lowest branches projecting over public properties provide a clearance of not less than eight (8) feet over sidewalks and not less than twelve (12) feet over streets.

Fire Department. Standard Conditions of Approval:

55. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. The Fire Chief shall review and approve all requests for new addresses. Inspection and signoff of address posting shall be coordinated through Building Department.

56.Smoke and CO detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code. Final inspection and signoff of smoke detectors shall be coordinated through Building Department.

57. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for:
a. All new roofs shall be non-combustible.
b. Roof Repairs or replacement:
i. Less than 25% - no requirement
ii. 25Hr to 50% - Class C minimum
iii. 50% or more — Non-Combustible
c. In no case shall the roofing material used to be less fire resistive than the existing roof.

NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group R Occupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the California Building Code and approved by the Building Department.

58. Prior to occupancy, a spark arrester shall be installed on the chimney(s) 3/8" mesh minimum.

Building Department Standard Conditions of Approval:

59. All construction shall comply with all applicable Title 24 Codes in effect at the time of building permit submittal. It is the responsibility of the designer(s) to ensure that all applicable Title 24 codes, as well as any applicable Sebastopol Municipal Codes are incorporated into the design.

60. The project shall comply with the Green Building regulations contained in the Sebastopol Municipal Code that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

END OF STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From: B
To: Mary Gourley
Subject: City Council October 4, 2023
Date: Monday, October 03, 2022 11:38:41 AM
Hello, Mary.

Please include my comments to the Sebastopol city council members during tomorrow’s meeting.

Thanks so much, Barbara A Harris
I SUPPORT efforts to continue funding for Horizon Shine and Park Village unhoused programs.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From:

To: Mary Gourley
Subject: Council Promised 1 year; Now It"s 3 - The SAVS RV SITE - Public Comment 10/4/22 Date: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 3:20:33 PM
Dear Council Members,
SAVS - No Exit
I have been writing letters in regards to the exit strategy for the residents of the SAVS RV site for over six months. When the site was being discussed, I asked similar questions on how the SAVS program was going to transition people into permanent housing, jobs, mental health care and drug treatment. I asked why, if SAVS had been working with people on Morris Street for a year, had no one moved into permanent housing.

Council Promised Site Would Close - December 2022
When the site was implemented, the Council, on numerous occasions, said, in public meetings, the site would only last through December 2022.

Below are just a few quotes from Council Meetings taken from the minutes of meetings Nov 30-Dec 7th, 2021:

Mayor Glass: The goal of a site like this is to provide transition for people to get their lives together. There are some people that may want to live in RVs permanently. But this is not a permanent site. What we need to work on as a county, permanent locations for RV villages and this is not that prospective site. We may, if we get this site going, we will immediately be looking for new permanent sites. Around West county.

Council Member Hinton: I just wanted to remind the public it's a one-year program.

Council Member Rich: We wanted to make sure everyone understands this is in fact a temporary one year urgent use.

Funding for the site, a mix of left over COVID funds and County bridge funding, only extended through that time period.

Does Council have to keep their word when it is given in public on multiple occasions? Does the Council have an obligation to uphold their promise when it is made at a Council meeting?
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Unhoused has been extremely vague and opaque in their reports. For instance, they simply had "site relocation for the RV Village" drop off their agenda at the last meeting.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Rich U-Turns - Now 2 More Years?
Now, we find out that Council Member Rich wants a one to two year extension for the RV Site. Agenda Item 6b.
https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/Meeting-Event/City-Council/2022/CityCouncil-Meeting-October-4,-2022/Agenda-Item-Number-6-b-St-Vincent-de-PaulSVdP-Resolution-Of-Suppport-845-Grav-N-Site.pdf.aspx Is this the type of community transparency and honest communication we want from our City Council?
SAVS Understaffed, Under Resourced
From item 6a, we learn that the SAVS facility is understaffed and does not have appropropriate staffing for the mental health and addiction issues of occupants.

In addition, a violent occupant was asked to leave the facility and SAVS has a restraining order against this person. This leaves the public wondering if the person is still in our community with their mental health needs unattended and their violent tendencies unaddressed.
https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/Meeting-Event/City-Council/2022/CityCouncil-Meeting-October-4,-2022/Agenda-Item-Number-6-a-Informational-Reportfrom-SAVS-For-Horizon-Shine-RV-Village.pdf.aspx "Not one, but two, of our core case managers have had serious health issues that kept them off work for many days."
"In the middle of some major revamping, our village manager resigned without notice."
"There are villagers with addiction problems, and we’ve tried many paths to treatment for this serious illness. Recently, we tried again to connect with Narcotics Anonymous. They told us that they are getting requests from other encampments and are currently stretched thin. We’ve happy to see more homeless people and homeless advocates looking for this kind of help. We only wish there were more addicts in recovery willing to do this difficult and important work." "Two villagers moved out in this quarter. One gentleman was asked to leave due to violent behavior and the Sonoma County Superior Court imposed a restraining order to prevent him from harassing our staff. The second villager was accused of theft when a visitor’s valuable item disappeared. He was asked to leave. This incident is under investigation and a decision on whether to invite him to return is under review." I am grateful to Adrienne Lauby for her honesty. I think her report underscores the Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

fact that many homeless individuals are suffering from untreated addiction and mental health issues. It also underscores the need for the funding for mental health and addiction treatment. The County has spent over $92,000,000 in the last 2 years and has not increased mental health beds or addiction treatment to even begin addressing the needs of our current homeless population. Our mental health beds are at numbers lower than a decade ago.

Thus the funding for these sites are probably not the $680,000 allotted for the 10 month period of the SAVS village but the $3,400,000 annual budget of the Sebastopol Inn.

Questions for Council Member Rich:

1. Where is the funding for the site coming from so that it could operate for 2 more years?;

2. If SAVS does not have the current staffing resources to address the mental health and addiction needs of the site's occupants, does that impact the community and neighborhoods immediately around the site? Are there more drug dealers, petty crime and unstable individuals within close range of a public trail and a K-8 school that might negatively impact our students, families, visitors, walkers and bicyclists? Does this impact our community businesses?;

3. Each occupant of the RV Village will have received 10 months free rent, free food, free utilities. Are they required to become sober, get jobs or any in way move toward self sufficiency?;

4. Will drug use still be permitted on the site if Council grants this extension?;

5. Were all the terms of the Original Agreement met and do they continue to be met?;

6. What is the neighborhood input on this site?;

7. What do community businesses have to say about the site?;

8. Is this site legal?:

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

9. Can anyone put RVs onto a piece of commercial land and let people live in them within the City Limits or is this only something that Council can do?.

Best,
Kate Haug
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From:

To: Mary Gourley
Subject: Encouragement to continue Support for Horizon Shine Village Date: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 4:06:28 PM
Thank you to all members of the City Council of Sebastopol for your support for Horizon Shine Village for this past year. It has brought to the people at the Village a stability they did not have on the street.

Now provided are regular sanitation services, showers, water and electricity, and regular meals. And important support services being offered the villagers can focus beyond basic survival.

They have a
place to sit down by themself or with others to take on their own affairs.

It is important that your support continues and hopefully expands--and deepens. If not there is no place to go for those without a housing option.

Change (as through skills, habits, experience) take time. We live in this most wealthy country that can make big changes. We need the will along with an outbreak of the imagination to make sure all people are provided for.

Barbara Renzullo
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From:

To: Mary Gourley
Cc:

Subject: Homeless services for Sebastopol area unhoused Date: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 3:59:11 PM
Hello MaryI see that the Council agenda tonight includes requests for funding for SAVS and WCCS at Horizon Shine. If funding is not forthcoming it is likely that the 25 people now being served will end up in circumstances where they are again scrabbling to stay alive in our City and outlying areas. The report from SAVS indicates that in the 9 months that Horizon Shine has been open, about 10 % have been able to get jobs and/or permanent housing. This is pretty good when you consider that most of the HS clients have been chronically homeless. That means they have some kind of disability which has contributed to their being unhoused for at least a year, but more likely at least 5 years. Two of the biggest barriers to moving into jobs and housing are mental issues and abuse of alcohol or other drugs. Services to overcome those barriers are generally provided by gounty governmnet and they are in very short supply.

While I think it is critical to keep continued funding from the county to continue providing shelter and services at Horizon Shine and ask that you provide some of them and request them other funders, , I hope you will consider making requests that Sonoma County alcohol, drug and mental services be provided in amounts directly proportional to the population of the Sebastopol Area. We are fighting an uphill battle with chronically unhoused people unless they can access such services more often than is now the case.

Sebastopol has been and is spending nearly 50% of its General Funds for police services. I believe that calls for services have declined in s=respnse to the housing that has recently been provided at Park Village, Elderberry Inn and Horizon Shine. IF WE CAN INCREASE THE SUPPORTIVE SERVCES SUCH AS AODS AND MENTAL HEALTH, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICES CAN DECLINE.

Please request continued funding for Horizon Shine, and request funding from AODS and Mental Health Services for Sebastopol Area clients proportionate to the poulation of our area.

Sincerely
Gale Brownell
Housing Advocate
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From:

To: Mary Gourley
Subject: Horizon Shine and Park support
Date: Monday, October 03, 2022 11:47:34 AM
Hello,
I am asking you to give your support for the unhoused programs. They need all the help they can get. And please remind yourselves that most if not all of the unhoused chose to be that way.

Cheers,
Denny Petersen, Sebastopol
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From: Heather Stone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 10:07 AM
To: John Jay
Subject: Proposed 2 Year extension to RV encampment at 845 Gravenstein I am vehemently Opposed to the two-year extension on the RV encampment that was sprung on the residents of this area of Sebastopol without any notice, opportunity to comment or due process.

As an attorney, a resident, and an investor in local real estate, I am appalled by the total disregard shown for the hardworking tax-paying Sebastopol residents.

The crime, garbage and drugs this encampment has brought to our neighborhood is obvious to all who live nearby. I no longer feel safe walking to the store or walking my dog in the evening here. I pay hefty property taxes for the privilege of living here. Local property values are being crushed by the improper installation of this homeless encampment in our backyard. One might call that it unconstitutional “taking”of property rights. You have shifted a problem that was developing near the Barlow onto our backs and we had no say. We also pay hefty taxes and contribute mightily to the Sebastopol economy.

Solving homelessness is a challenge, but This project has been undertaken in the wrong way from inception, without participation from the neighbors or the local community, it’s been rammed down our throats without proper notice, without properly following the the law or exploring alternatives.

Now. The promise “That this is only a one year emergency project and it will be over in December 2022” is magically reversed? A 2 YEAR EXTENSION? No!
I have endeavored to keep rents low at investment properties I have purchased. I am keeping people comfortably housed, choosing humanity over profit. I am doing my part already. Seek alternatives as promised.

I cannot attend the meeting tonight, but I know I speak for many.

Heather Stone Esq.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

From:

To: City Council
Subject: RV Village concern
Date: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 10:41:16 AM
Hello,
I live fairly close to this RV "village" and am very concerned about what I read yesterday. Is it true you want to extend this by 2 YEARS? After promising and reiterating many times last December that it would be for only ONE?
Has anyone seen the garbage, grocery carts and other items accumulating around this area? I have, and have also seen members of the community picking it up. They shouldn't need to do that!
My husband and I used to walk through the alley way from Norlee towards 116. We no longer do this after more than a few times, there were unhoused people there yelling, camping, and rummaging through the garage. No - they might not have been from across the street, but there is a definite increase of people and garbage there. Also the area behind the business where the Ceres garden was. There are encampments there that I have seen. People who live near the village say they hear yelling and fighting nightly.

Anyway - I hope this is just a rumor about the 2 more years. We know people who are moving from the area because they no longer feel comfortable here. We could be next.

Thank you for reading.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy A12, an AT&T smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

WEST COUNTY HOMELESS ADVOCATES (WCHA) LETTER OF SUPP0RT FOR PARK VILLAGE AND HORIZON SHINE AGENDA ITEM 6 RESOLUTIONS Dear Council: On behalf of West County Homeless Advocates (WCHA) of which I am chair, this is to urge your support of Resolutions in Agenda Item 6 tonight 10-4-22 calling for continued funding for Park Village and the Horizon Shine RV Village for persons who might otherwise be unhoused. WCHA, as you will recall, as an ad hoc volunteer group drawn from churches, service organizations, and interested and activist citizens.

Horizon Shine specifically is at risk of losing its funding by the end of the year. This would expel its residents back onto city streets or outlying areas that are even more unwelcoming than when Horizon Shine was created earlier this year, defeating everything that the Council and the City’s various departments including police, planning, and public works, and Sonoma Applied Village Services (SAVS) has accomplished in the past year.

The effort expressed in creating Horizon Shine and the continuing support for Park Village, and the related unhoused outreach contract caseworker Jennifer Lake with WCCS, are the admirable legacies of this Council, and should neither be abandoned nor left to whatever an incoming and perhaps differently-directed Council may decide after elections just more than a month away. This Council should stand with the proposed Resolutions which reflect the history and accomplishments of this Council for as long as this Council as presently constituted remains seated.

Horizon Shine as a housing alternative was a key legal element to the clearance of Morris Street and similar encampments, in conjunction with the City’s revised parking ordinance which banned all RVs from all city streets except for a late night/early morning window of time. Shifting unauthorized RVs out of city limits onto outlying areas was frankly stated by former Police Chief Kevin Kilgore in Council testimony as a related device to clear Morris Street and environs. Termination of Horizon Shine simply spills all of its residents back out into wherever they might relocate in unorganized encampments without services.

There has yet been a failure of higher government entities to address this problem here, and the proposed resolutions tonight call on higher government to act. That action must be more than expanding tolerance county-wide for encampments, which we see already encroaching onto the City Plaza. It is well-established that housing, even such as Tiny Homes, or RV villages, is key to recovery for the unhoused, with drug and mental health services. Horizon Shine is a model for meaningful response.

The quarterly report of SAVS provide to the Council is admirable in its honesty. While documenting its successes, it does not sugarcoat its problems. These problems are not failures. Rather they speak to the enormity of the task in assisting the unhoused who are disadvantaged in a variety of directions. SAVS staff and volunteers have been shocked as they intimately encounter situations they formerly knew closely but at arm’s length. This is a process of education for all. A reported reduction in the homeless count does not mean the problem is close to being solved; it reflects only a beginning. The task undertaken by SAVS cannot be allowed to lapse.

One can care not at all about the unhoused themselves, yet decide to assist them because it is better for the City in every way, than to have them back randomly and unsupported on streets, in the Laguna, in neighborhoods, or on outlying private lands. Even as some blame the unhoused for their predicament as a result of bad choices (ignoring mental health challenges that may go back to childhood and early youth), we do not vilify the tobacco smoker with lung cancer for his/her decisions or deny him/her insurance coverage: programs/treatment/hospitalizations exist to help.

Unhoused unfortunates deserve no less.

Respectfully submitted,
Arthur George
Chair, West County Homeless Advocates (WCHA)
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

EXHIBIT B

FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Temporary Use Permit for a
24-7 Safe Recreational Vehicle/Vehicle Parking Site
845 Gravenstein Highway North
APN 060-261-030; File 2022-73

1. The Use shall be in substantial conformance with the proposed operations as described in the application materials prepared by Sonoma Applied Villages (SAVS), and received on September 22, 2022, and on file at the City of Sebastopol Planning Department, except as modified herein:
a) Enhance coordination with Police for monitoring area surrounding site as a neighborhood watch function.
b) Provide quarterly reports to the Planning Commission as a regular agenda item. c) SAVS shall plan for the transition of residents at the end of the program. Reports on this plan shall begin on the 5th quarterly report at the latest.

2. This use is authorized to continue for two years commencing January 1, 2023 and ending December 31, 2024. This use is an interim use only, and shall not be allowed to be a permanent use on the site.

3. All operating conditions and requirements contained within Exhibit “A”, the Sonoma Applied Village Services “SAVS 24-7 Safe Parking Operations Manual” dated December 3, 2021, and the “Village Rules and Responsibilities”, dated September 22, 2022, shall be maintained for the duration of the operations.

The Applicant shall forward any substantial modification to its program, policies, or procedures to the Planning Department for review and approval by City staff. If City staff determines that any of these modifications are not in substantial conformance with the Use Permit, those changes shall require an Amendment to the Use Permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission through the public hearing process.

4. SAVS shall continue to conduct resident outreach program and neighborhood outreach programs on an ongoing basis.

5. The City of Sebastopol and its agents, officers and employees shall be defended, indemnified, and held harmless from any claim, action or proceedings against the City, or its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application or the environmental determination which accompanies it, or which otherwise arises out of or in connection with the City’s action on this application, including but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, or expert witness fees.

6. The Planning Director shall interpret applicable requirements in the event of any redundancy or conflict in conditions of approval.

7. This approval does not include any signs. Any new signs that will identify the use of this property are subject to the prior approval of the Design Review Board or City staff, as appropriate.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

EXHIBIT C

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Temporary Use Permit for a
24-7 Safe Recreational Vehicle/Vehicle Parking Site
845 Gravenstein Highway North
APN 060-261-030; File 2022-73

1. All plans shall include a brief description of the project on the cover sheet.

2. All submitted building permit plan check sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these conditions of approval.

3. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, the plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be in substantial conformance to those approved by the review body. If any changes are made to submitted plans which were approved by the review body the applicant shall work with the Planning Department to determine if the changes are significant enough to once again be seen by the review body, or if staff can approve the changes. Any changes that have not been approved by Planning staff are not approved. Construction or demolition work that does not conform to the Planning approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.

4. Site landscaping shall be generally consistent with the Landscape Plan included as part of “Exhibit A” on file with the Sebastopol Planning Department. The final landscape plan shall be stamped by a licensed landscape architect and filed with the Planning Department prior to occupancy. Plans for any irrigation of the site shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. All planting shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy of the proposed project. Upon the request of an Applicant to receive a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and at discretion of the Planning Director, landscape installation may be suitably guaranteed by posting a cash bond equal to l00% of the cost and installation of any landscape improvements.

5. Acceptance of the construction drawings and specifications does not release the applicant and owner from correction of mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein. If, during the course of construction, the field conditions or other previously unknown conditions require a modification or a departure from the accepted plans, the applicant shall provide the modifications or departure and specify the correction of mistakes errors, or omissions in compliance with the CBC and City Standards.

6. The City of Sebastopol and its agents, officers and employees shall be defended, indemnified, and held harmless from any claim, action or proceedings against the City, or its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application or the environmental determination which accompanies it, or which otherwise arises out of or in connection with the City’s action on this application, including but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, or expert witness fees.

7. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to the City as part of the Building Permit and/or Grading Permit and shall be incorporated into the plans, unless waived by staff. The City’s CMP template, provided by the Planning Department, may be used for small, infill projects. Revisions to the CMP to increase or add on time to the construction timeline shall be coordinated with the Building Official and any additional requests will be at the applicant’s responsibility.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

This CMP shall be a binding document. Failure to adhere to the CMP may result in a “Stop Work Notice” being placed on the project. An electronic copy of the APPROVED CMP shall be submitted to the City, and may be posted to the city’s website. The CMP shall be updated as project conditions warrant. Updates to the CMP shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The CMP shall include but not be limited to:
a) Work schedule (start of construction date, road or lane closure intent/dates, important milestones and proposed final dates)
b) Construction Hours
c) Travel routes and turn-around locations with staff approval • Impact to state highways
d) Road and/or lane closures (Applicant to provide information on how many anticipated road closures, and the reasons for each road closure). e) Worker auto parking space locations/construction parking f) Phasing (if applicable)
g) If construction improvements are located in areas of slopes 15% or greater, the Contractor shall provide safe temporary hard surface stair access to the improvements, unless waived by the Building Official. This access shall be shown on the CMP.
h) Projects that require a grading permit shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance.

The CMP may be more stringent if the project is located close to schools or in impacted neighborhoods. A CMP may be required to be modified if a neighborhood becomes “impacted” during the course of the construction. Impacted neighborhoods are defined as areas in geographic proximity (i.e. using the same streets for access) with a significant number of simultaneous construction projects.

The hours of construction activity shall be limited 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with staff approval, depending on scope of work being done, or unless modified by a project’s Specific Conditions of Approval.

A24-inch by 36-inch weatherproof copy with items A-F posted on site. The remaining Construction Management Plan shall be made available on site. The Construction Management Plan shall be posted on the site as part of the job site signage and should include:
a) Address of the project site.
b) Permitted hours of construction and of deliveries/off-haul. c) Name, e-mail address and direct phone number of the General Contractor. d) Name, e-mail address and direct phone number of the person responsible for managing theproject.
e) Name and direct phone number of the party to call in case of an emergency. f) City of Sebastopol Building Department (707-823-8597).

8. All construction materials, debris and equipment shall be stored on site. If that is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to placing any construction materials, debris, debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. The fee for using the right-of-way for storage of construction materials or equipment is $10.00 per day. A minimum of 11’ passable auto traffic clearance (paved travel way) shall be maintained at all times along the roadway. The placing of portable restroom facilities in the City right-of-way will not be Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

permitted.

9. All portions of the job site shall be maintained in an organized and professional condition. All trash, debris, construction scraps and broken/deteriorated machinery shall be removed from the site by the end of each week. If off loaded construction materials are not used within 2 weeks, they shall be screened from public view. All sidewalks, driveways and public/private roadways fronting the subject site shall be broom cleaned at the end of each business day.

10. A pre-construction meeting is required with city staff for projects that:
a) Require a City encroachment permit, a Caltrans encroachment permit, or a City grading permit; or
b) Have 5 dwelling units or more; or
c) Have a total of 5,000 square feet of building or more; or d) Have a creek setback requirement; or
e) Are required to have a pre-construction meeting under a specific condition of approval.

11. All permits and/or inspection fees required shall be paid in full prior to final occupancy being granted unless otherwise stipulated by the City.

12. All required construction signage and any required tree-protection shall be posted and available for City inspection at the time of the Pre-construction meeting or, if no preconstruction meeting is required, prior to commencing construction. If these measures are not in place at the time of the pre-construction meeting, a re- inspection fee will be required, and issuance of building permit will be delayed.

13. The Planning Director shall interpret applicable requirements in the event of any redundancy or conflict in conditions of approval.

Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval:

14. This approval is valid for a period of three (3) years during which time the rights granted must be exercised. However, the applicant may request one (1) one-year extension of this Use Permit from the Planning Director, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §17.400.100.

15. The light source for all exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded from adjacent properties. Cut sheets for all exterior lighting shall be submitted as part of the Design Review or other planning application.

16. For projects with new foundations or retaining walls less than 10’ away from a required setback property lines shall be physically identified (string line or equal), and the applicant shall submit a letter or certificate from a licensed surveyor that confirms that the structure complies with the approved setbacks prior to placing the foundation. For any project that includes new foundations or retaining walls more than 10’ away from a required setback, the applicant may apply for a waiver from this requirement from the City Engineer and Planning Department.

17. For any project that includes new structures within 2 feet of the allowed height limit, a letter or certificate from a surveyor confirming that the height of the roof complies with Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

the approved plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department at the earliest point possible.

18. All landscape and irrigation plans must be designed in accordance with the most current City of Sebastopol landscape requirements. Prior to providing water service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the Planning Department must review and approve the project’s working drawings for planting and irrigation systems. Any question regarding the City of Sebastopol current water conservation and Landscape Ordinance should be directed to the Planning Department.

New construction and rehabilitated (renovations or changes made to sites with an existing irrigation system) landscape projects will be affected by these requirements if the altered landscape area is greater than 500 square feet.

19. For any new housing unit development, the developer/owner shall submit the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final inspection.

Engineering and Public Works Department Standard Conditions of Approval:

20. All projects are subject to Impact Fees as adopted by the City Council, which are due at the time of issuance of the Building Permit unless otherwise stipulated by the City.

21. An Encroachment Permit is required from the Public Works Department for any and all work within the public right-of-way. If the work is within a CalTrans right-of way, an Encroachment Permit from CalTrans shall also be procured by the applicant.

Encroachment Permit shall not be issued until the City Engineer approves the applicant’s site improvement plans.

22. Construction within the public right-of-way is limited to that necessary to support the lot's use. This may include but is not limited to: driveways, sidewalks and any utility connections. For all improvements within the public right of way, the applicant shall submit plans to adequately describe the work. Plans shall include but not be limited to drainage details, cross-sections, driveway/roadway grades and utility locations as necessary.

23. The applicant shall prepare and submit site improvement plans for the construction of all improvements including water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, water quality facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, elevated or structural pedestrian walkways, landscaping, landscape irrigation, signing, striping, joint trench and streetlights. All design and construction shall conform to the latest edition of the City of Sebastopol Design and Construction Standards and other applicable codes, standards, guidelines and specifications. Public improvement drawings shall be drafted in the City-approved sheet format.

24. Once approved by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit PDF files of the signed improvement plans. As-Built record drawings shall also be submitted as PDF files.

25. Deviations from City Standards and applicable Code requirements shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant’s engineer shall request all design exceptions in writing.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

26. Any improvements, public or private, damaged during construction shall be replaced, by the applicant, in-kind or with new improvements. All cracked, broken, or uplifted sidewalk, driveway and/or curb and gutter fronting the property shall be replaced.

Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department prior to the first submittal of project improvement plans to identify the extents and limits of replacement.

27. An erosion and sediment control plan are required as part of the building permit application. The plan shall be prepared by a certified erosion control specialist and in full compliance with CASQA standards, The plan is subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the building or grading permit. No modifications to the approved plans shall be made without approval of the City Engineer.

28. Mailbox plans and locations shall be approved by the Sebastopol Postmaster prior to improvement plan approval. The developer shall provide a letter and exhibit showing mailbox locations from the Sebastopol Postmaster approving mailbox locations.

29. City Public Water and Sewer and Drainage utility easements as required by the City Engineer utility companies shall be provided within the development. Easement locations shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

Roadway Improvements:

30. The improvement plans for the first phase of development shall include and provide for the construction of all offsite improvements as required to support full project buildout. Each subsequent phase of development shall construct sufficient onsite roadway and utility improvements to support the cumulative development proposed to be constructed as approved by the City Engineer.

31. Road closures, if permitted by the Project Approval, will only be permitted with prior authorization from the Public Works Department consistent with the City's road closure policy. Signs containing details of the proposed closure must be posted 48 hours in advance. Coordinate road closures with the Sebastopol Public Works Department.

Contact the Public Works Department at 707-823-5331 to obtain a road closure permit.

32. An emergency vehicle access, meeting the requirements of the Sebastopol Fire Department shall be constructed.

33. All private driveway areas less than 24-foot wide shall require the approval of the Sebastopol Fire Department.

34. Sidewalk warps shall be provided to allow a clear five-foot walkway at all locations, including areas where mailboxes, street furniture, streetlights, street signs and fire hydrants are to be installed, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

35. The structural section of all public road improvements shall be designed using a soil investigation which provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. A copy of Geotechnical report and structural section calculations shall be submitted with the first improvement plan check.

36. The structural section of the private on-site drive aisles and parking areas shall meet the requirements and recommendations of the geotechnical report for the project.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

37. Retaining walls and retaining curbs may be required to protect damage to trees as determined by a licensed Arborist. All retaining structures shall be designed and constructed to minimize damage to trees.

38. Pedestrian curb ramps, meeting City standards and current accessibility requirements, shall be provided at all intersections and crosswalks where sidewalks are proposed.

Drainage Improvements:

39. All project related flooding impacts shall be mitigated by the project developer.

Drainage improvements shall be designed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California in accordance with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Flood Management Design Manual (FMDM). Public and private drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans and the City Engineer may require the applicant to acquire the review and recommendations by the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) prior to approval by the City Engineer. Private storm drain easements will be required for any portions of the private storm drain not entirely located with the lot being served or for any portion of a private utility located on an adjacent parcel.

40. No lot-to-lot drainage will be allowed between the project site and any adjacent parcels. No concentrated drainage may discharge across sidewalks. All site drains must be connected to the public storm drain system or discharged through the face of curb or to an established waterway.

41. Plans and certifications shall demonstrate compliance of all improvements, including building finished floor elevations, with the City's Flood Ordinance, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer. Building finished floor elevations shall be constructed at a minimum of 2 foot above the 100-year storm event water surface elevation as determined by the City and certified by the project engineer. The Engineer of Record shall provide a signed and stamped letter indicating the project meets the requirements of the Ordinance before plan approval.

Stormwater Quality:

42. Projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are subject to design and construction requirements of the most recent edition of City of Sebastopol Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Design Manual.

Improvement plans with required LID design features shall be approved by the City Engineer.

43. Projects that will disturb 1.0 acre or more of developed or undeveloped land shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been submitted by the applicant and received by the State Water Resources Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Two copies of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City prior to issuing a grading permit, encroachment permit, or building permit.

44. For required LID features constructed on private property or on street frontage, the owner shall provide a Declaration Letter to the City Manager regarding the owner’s commitment to ongoing maintenance of said LID features (LID Declaration) prior to occupancy.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Grading:

45. The improvement plans shall include a site-grading plan prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California as part of the required improvement drawings. Lots shall be generally designed to drain to public and private streets or parking areas, unless otherwise approved in the interest of tree preservation or other unusual circumstances.

46. The City of Sebastopol shall require a grading permit for projects that meet these requirements.
a) Cut or fill exceeding 50 cubic yards
b) Cut or fill greater than 3 feet in depth
c) Cut creating a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height and steeper than 2 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical
d) Fill intended to support a structure or surcharge greater than 1 foot in depth or placed on terrain with a natural slope steeper than 15 percent

47. When required by the Building Official the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, a detailed Geotechnical Report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of California. The grading plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Report.

48. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered during grading operations are different from those anticipated in the Geotechnical Report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.

It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.

49. Existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks that are defective or will no longer be in use shall be permanently destroyed or removed under permit and inspection by the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department, Well and Septic Division and/or Sonoma County Environmental Health or other designated agency. Underground fuel storage tanks are subject to UST regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board.

50. The grading plan shall clearly show all existing survey monuments and property corners and shall state that they shall be protected and preserved. Should monuments be damaged or destroyed during construction, they shall be replaced by the developer.

51. Improvements plans shall include an erosion control (winterization) plan. The plan shall include an order of work and staging/scheduling component indicating when facilities must be installed and when they may be removed.

52. Sewer services and laterals shall be CCTV inspected to determine if the service needs to be removed and replaced. A copy of the CCTV report shall be provided to the City Engineer. A waiver for CCTV inspection may be waived by the City Engineer, if the sewer lateral has been replaced within ten years of the submittal of the improvement plans. A copy of the documentation evidencing such replacement shall be included in the submittal package.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

53. If the proposed project is located in or adjacent to a waterway, within an area designated as habitat for threatened or endangered species, or other special status area, it possibly falls under the jurisdiction of another agency such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control, or the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, etc. These agencies shall be contacted to determine if the project lies within their respective jurisdictions. All necessary permits and/or approvals shall be obtained prior to the City issuing any permits. If permits are not required, a letter stating so shall be submitted to the City as part of the record.

54. Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according to Section 8.12 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code. Trees and shrubs shall be kept trimmed so that the lowest branches projecting over public properties provide a clearance of not less than eight (8) feet over sidewalks and not less than twelve (12) feet over streets.

Fire Department. Standard Conditions of Approval:

55. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. The Fire Chief shall review and approve all requests for new addresses. Inspection and signoff of address posting shall be coordinated through Building Department.

56.Smoke and CO detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code. Final inspection and signoff of smoke detectors shall be coordinated through Building Department.

57. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for:
a. All new roofs shall be non-combustible.
b. Roof Repairs or replacement:
i. Less than 25% - no requirement
ii. 25Hr to 50% - Class C minimum
iii. 50% or more — Non-Combustible
c. In no case shall the roofing material used to be less fire resistive than the existing roof.

NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group R Occupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the California Building Code and approved by the Building Department.

58. Prior to occupancy, a spark arrester shall be installed on the chimney(s) 3/8" mesh minimum.

Building Department Standard Conditions of Approval:

59. All construction shall comply with all applicable Title 24 Codes in effect at the time of building permit submittal. It is the responsibility of the designer(s) to ensure that all applicable Title 24 codes, as well as any applicable Sebastopol Municipal Codes are incorporated into the design.

60. The project shall comply with the Green Building regulations contained in the Sebastopol Municipal Code that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

END OF STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Date: _________________________
* Filing Fee Paid: _______________
File #: ________________________
To: (check one):
[ ] PLANNING COMMISSION (limited to the appeal of staff determination not involving design matters or Planning Director Use Permit decision)
[ ] DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (limited to the appeal of staff determination on design matters) [ ] TREE BOARD (limited to the appeal of staff determination on tree removals) [ ] CITY COUNCIL (all other appeals)
FROM: ____________________________________
(Please print your name)
SUBJECT:

I wish to appeal the action of: (check one):
[ ] CITY STAFF (please give name or title) ______________________________ [ ] PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARING
[ ] TREE BOARD
[ ] DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
[ ] PLANNING COMMISSION
Taken or made on __________________ with regards to _______________________________________________. (Date of action or decision) (Name of use, applicant, project or other description of item you are appealing) I ask that the decision or determination made above be reversed and/or modified, and that the original application be:
(Check one): [ ] granted [ ] denied [ ] modified
The reason(s) that my appeal should be granted by the Board, Commission, or Council named above [ ] are set forth below: or, [ ] are attached.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I understand that there is a filing fee for appeal, whether the appeal is from a Staff Determination, Design Review Board Decision, or Planning Commission Decision, and that the fee must be paid on the date that the appeal is submitted. Appeals must be submitted within 7 calendar days from the day of the original staff determination, or of the Board/Commission action. (The date of the decision is not included in the calculation of 7 days.)* You will be notified by mail of the date of the Board, Commission or City Council hearing on review of your appeal. All interested persons will be entitled to attend the meeting and be heard. ____________________________________________
Your Signature Print Name
____________________________________________
Your Mailing Address
____________________________________________
Your Phone Number Your Email Address
* If a staff determination was mailed to you, and a public meeting has not been held, the appeal must be submitted within seven (7) days of the mailing of the letter.

City of Sebastopol

APPEAL FORM
10-17-22 X
Zachary Imbrogno, President, Friends of Northwest Sebastopol 10-11-22 x agenda item 5, a 2 year temporary use permit for SAVS RV encampment x Zachary Imbrogno, President,
Friends of Northwest Sebastopol 125 S Main St. #184 Sebastopol, CA 95472 917-623-5494 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 1: APPEAL DOCUMENTS
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

October 11, 2022
City of Sebastopol
Planning Department
Attn.: Kari Svanstrom, Director
Planning Commission
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol CA 95472
by email to [email protected]
Re: October 11, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item 5a Appeal under Zoning Code § 17.455.020.A.1
Dear Director Svanstrom, Chair Fritz, and Members of the Planning Commission, Appeal to Planning Commission
This letter objects to and appeals all “determinations and interpretations” by the Planning Director contained in the City of Sebastopol Planning Commission Staff Report for Meeting Date October 11, 2022, Agenda Item 5A, File Number 2022-073. See Sebastopol Zoning Code §

17.455.20.A.1.

Under the Zoning Code, the Commission is required to hold a hearing on this appeal within no fewer than five days from the date of this letter. Based on this appeal, it is submitted that the Commission should defer action on the agenda item until the appeal has been resolved.

The specific determinations and interpretations appealed include that the proposed two-year extension of the SAVS RV encampment is a temporary use, and that the RV encampment is a homeless shelter, a “temporary residential use, and/or a temporary care unit. The basis for the appeal is included in the following comments and the accompanying impact report.

Objections and Comments on Agenda Item 5A
These comments also serve as comments directly to the Planning Commission on the proposed agenda item 5A at the October 11, 2022, Planning Commission hearing.

The Two-Year Extension is Not A Temporary Use
The proposed two-year extension of the RV encampment is not a temporary use under Zoning Code section 17.430.010. That section defines “temporary uses” as “including contractor storage yards, temporary trailer offices for businesses, and circuses and carnivals and other temporary uses as determined by the Planning Director.” The staff report argues that the two year extension is a temporary use because it does not require the construction of any permanent improvements, but that is not the standard for identifying whether a use is Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

temporary. That standard is whether it is a “contractor storage yard, trailer office for a business, a circus or carnival, or other temporary use.” When a statute or regulation lists a number of specific examples and then concludes with a catch all phrase, that catch all phrase is limited to items that are similar in nature to the specific examples. (Moore v. California State Board of Accountancy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 999, 1011-12 [collecting cases]) Contractor storage yards and temporary trailer offices for businesses indicate activities that occur while a permanent development is being completed elsewhere, while circuses and carnivals are clearly transient events that occupy otherwise vacant lots for some period of time and then move on. So “other temporary uses” would have to fall into one of those two categories. The RV encampment is not an ancillary support activity that allows the completion of a permanent improvement somewhere else. Instead, it is the main and only proposed use of the property. It therefore is not an “other temporary use” in the same category as contractor yards or office trailers. To say it is like this type of temporary use, one would have to imagine office workers or sales staff conducting business in the middle of a construction site with the construction of their eventual office space going on all around them. Not only is that nonsensical, but the City would never allow it, for all of the same zoning, safety, and public health reasons that it may not permit the extension of the SAVS RV encampment.

Nor is the RV encampment an “other temporary use” of the type illustrates by circuses and carnivals, which (whatever other virtues they may have) pack up and leave when their performances are finished. Life may imitate art, but the SAVS RV encampment may not be reasonable understood to be a performance event like a circus or carnival.

The Commission May Not Make the Findings Necessary To Approve A Two Year Extension As A Temporary Use
Nor may the Planning Commission make the findings necessary under Zoning Code section

17.430.040, that a two-year extension of the SAVS RV encampment will not be an “establishment, maintenance, or operation that will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the encampment, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.

The staff report concedes that the encampment is characterized by surrounding incidences of illegal RV parking in the neighborhood, littering, shoplifting, and other petty crimes. The City’s record should also reflect documented incidences of fires on the site, human excrement on the sidewalk in front of the site (which sidewalk is a path for school children to walk to a nearby school), and noise in violation of City ordinances and SAVS own supposed noise rules.

The staff report fails to acknowledge that these neighborhood impacts began with the occupation of the site, and reflect activity by residents of the encampment or others who have been attracted to the neighborhood. The accompanying impact report documents events at the site over the past year, and shows that the impacts acknowledged in the staff report, plus others Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

that the report does not disclose, are caused directly or indirectly by the SAVS RV encampment, the services it provides, and/or its residents.

For all of these reasons, the Commission may not find that the extension would not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and/or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood.

The Proposed Two-Year Extension Is Not Categorically Exempt From CEQA For the same reasons, the City may not avail itself of a categorical exemption under CEQA. The proposed use is not temporary under the Zoning Code, and is certainly not temporary under any proper application of CEQA. Common sense and the accompanying impact report show that the RV park has significant impacts on the neighborhood, as documented in the impact report, and that these impacts have not been analyzed by the City or mitigated by the applicant.

The RV Encampment is Not a Homeless Shelter, Temporary Care Unit, or “Temporary Residential Use”
Nor is the RV encampment a homeless shelter, temporary care unit, or “temporary residential use” (a term apparently undefined in the Zoning Code according to the staff report). Two legal briefs are attached which cover these topics in great detail in Sections V.A. (February 10, 2022 Memorandum) and II.C. (April 20, 2022 Reply Brief), demonstrating that the Planning Director’s “determinations and interpretations” on these points are incorrect and not entitled to any deference.

There is no such category as a “temporary residential use” allowed under the Zoning Code, as conceded by the staff report.

Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is urged that the Planning Commission reject the Planning Director’s determinations and interpretations of the Zoning Code as discussed above and reject the application for a two-year extension under Agenda Item 5A.

Sincerely,
Zack Imbrogno
President
Friends of Northwest Sebastopol
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Impact Report
(Feb-Sept 2022)
Mid-late February
The RV encampment begins to be occupied without a formal opening date. Heavy construction occurs even as lived-in vehicles arrive. There is no electricity or running water.

March - May
Dumping of trash begins in the parking lot across from the RV encampment. Occasional solo campers begin to appear outdoors. RVs (see the black one that moved up from Morris street) and vans begin to stay weeks on end and trash/shopping carts begin to pile up. Neighbors report panhandling by transients and a grocery store employee is spit on.

People sleeping outside in the lot becomes an everyday event. Police respond to shoplifting.

We find out from Fire Chief Braga that the promised “fire inspection before opening” has not been performed for safety of the site and surrounding areas. This is finally done at our request in May.

Some vehicles like the red van are from out of state (Idaho) and appear to be gravitating toward the area. The Mary’s Pizza and Burger King in the shopping center close within a month.

June - July
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

With Mary’s Pizza closing and no one to stop loitering, multiple people now sleep in the parking lot across from the RV encampment every night. A dozen homeowners that back up to the shopping center have complained of hearing very loud noise at night from the lot. A neighbor has had gas stolen twice from a vehicle in their driveway.

It becomes clear that some vehicles that occupy the parking lot are connected to the RV encampment. The man pictured below walked from the blue pickup truck (parked long term next to black RV) with belongings and is seen entering the RV encampment (Jun 1).

On June 11 a man verbally assaults a woman after she jumps out of his car (see below image and video link). https://youtube.com/shorts/zhSn0OcK-_Y?feature=share On June 15 he is seen again as two people from the RV village come out and talk to him about why “someone was kicked out.”
Multiple transients congregate outside the closed Mary’s Pizza location effectively establishing a new encampment in the lot. Campers are also reported sleeping behind the O’Reilly Media building at 1005 Gravenstein Hwy N.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

August - September
Neighbors report more disturbances in and around the neighborhood, including one woman who came home in tears after being harrassed/panhandled trying to re-enter the neighborhood from the parking lot. The entrance is frequently blocked by campers and their trash which overflows from the Redwood Marketplace’s dumpsters.

Neighbors report being afraid to walk through the sidewalk (off Tocchini) leading to the Redwood Marketplace and Exchange Bank entrances where lived-in vehicles and campers set up overnight and sometimes mid-day (see below). People walking dogs encounter transients with dogs off leash. Drug deals in Exchange Bank parking lot.

October - Present
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

We continue to document camping, noise, trash, and waste in the area directly across and adjacent to the RV camp. There is also hard drug use occurring, such as in the vehicle pictured.

The burnt foil was found in the afternoon of the same day. The man in the back of the Toyota (in orange) was later seen taking items from a female (not present earlier) and heading inside the RV camp.

A local winemaker captured video of someone urinating and defecating on his property. Graffiti appears on a building at the Redwood Marketplace. On October 12th, employees chased a shoplifter out of Sebastopol Hardware.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

A discarded chair sits curbside outside the RV camp.

X’s mark local encampments documented on the Northwest side of town.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

1 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Tony Francois (CBN 184100)
Peter Prows (CBN 257819)

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 402-2700
Facsimile: (415) 398-5630
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No. SCV-270053

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE WRIT OF

MANDAMUS
Date:

Time:

Courtroom: 17
Accompanying Papers:

Notice of Motion and Motion for Writ of
Mandamus
Declaration of Peter S. Prows
FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL, a
California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation,
Petitioner,
v.

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, acting by and through
the Sebastopol City Council,
Respondent.

SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGES SERVICES, a
California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation;
and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL DISTRICT

COUNCIL OF SONOMA COUNTY,
INCORPORATED, a California nonprofit mutual
benefit corporation,

Real Parties in Interest.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Sonoma
2/10/2022 1:19 PM
Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the Court
By: Lorena Deloza, Deputy Clerk
4/20/22
3:00
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

2 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 II. Background .................................................................................................................. 4 A. The State Streamlines RV Encampments On City-Owned Or Leased Properties, But Not Other Properties ................................................................................................. 4 B. Sebastopol Passes Over Several Potential City-Owned Sites For The RV Encampment ............................................................................................... 5 C. Sebastopol Decides To Approve The RV Encampment For Private Property At 845 Gravenstein ............................................................................................................... 6 III. Authority To Issue A Writ .......................................................................................... 8 IV. A Noticed Motion Is The Proper Procedure ............................................................. 9 V. Administrative Mandamus (CCP § 1094.5(b)):

Sebastopol Prejudicially Abused Its Discretion In Approving The Illegal RV Encampment (Counts 1-3) .............................................................. 10 A. The City’s Approval Of The RV Encampment Violates
The Zoning Code’s Ban On Living In RVs (First Count) ............................................ 10 B. Sebastopol’s Approval Violated Its Permitting Procedures (Second Count) ............... 12 C. Sebastopol Did Not Give The Required Notice (Third Count) ..................................... 12 D. The City’s Violation Of The Law Was Prejudicial ....................................................... 13 VI. Traditional Mandamus (CCP § 1085):

Sebastopol Failed To Follow Its Own Ordinances (Count 4) ................................ 13 VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 14 Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

3 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Table of Authorities
Cases
California School Employees Ass’n v. Del Norte County Unified School District (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1396 ............................................................................................................. 10 Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1159 ....................... 9 Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408 ............................................... 9 Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347 ................................................................................. 9 People for Ethical Operation of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement v. Spitzer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 391 ............................................................................................................... 9 Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1 ..................................... 12 Statutes
CCP § 1085 ........................................................................................................................................... 8 CCP § 1086 ........................................................................................................................................... 8 CCP § 1094 ........................................................................................................................................... 9 CCP § 1094.5 ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Government Code § 8698.4 .................................................................................................................. 5 Government Code § 65009(b)(2) .......................................................................................................... 7 Public Resources Code § 21167(d) ....................................................................................................... 8 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.04.080 ........................................................................................ 4, 10 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.08.020(A)............................................................................. 5, 10, 11 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.08.060 ........................................................................................ 5, 11 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.08.100 ............................................................................................ 11 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.08.119 .............................................................................................. 4 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.100.010 .......................................................................................... 10 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.225.020 ...................................................................................... 5, 11 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.400.030(D)..................................................................................... 12 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.400.050 .......................................................................................... 13 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.400.060 .......................................................................................... 10 Sebastopol Municipal Code §§ 17.420.010 et seq. ......................................................................... 5, 11 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.420.020 .......................................................................................... 13 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.420.030 .......................................................................................... 11 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.460.020(B)(2) ................................................................................ 13 Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.470.020 .......................................................................................... 13 Treatises
California Practice Guide: Administrative Law Ch. 20-E .................................................................... 9 Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

4 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Sebastopol rushed through approval of a large RV encampment on a private lot, formerly used as a gas service station, even though the Sebastopol Zoning Code flatly forbids RV encampments without a use permit or a variance—which were not granted. Sebastopol did not try to justify its failure to follow the law. Petitioner Friends of Northwest Sebastopol, a nonprofit, is concerned about the harm this illegal project is likely to have on the local community.

In rushing to approve this illegal RV encampment, Sebastopol passed over multiple Cityowned sites where the encampment could have been sited without any Zoning Code restrictions or other requirements, and another site where the City had issued, or was prepared to issue, use permits that might have lawfully allowed the RV encampment.

A writ of mandamus should issue commanding the City to set aside its decision or require that real parties obtain a use permit or variance—or else abandon the RV project. A writ will help Sebastopol focus on alternative sites where this encampment may be legally sited.

II. BACKGROUND
A. The State Streamlines RV Encampments On City-Owned Or Leased Properties, But Not Other Properties
The Sebastopol Zoning Code, comprising Title 17 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code,1 contains strict restrictions on RVs in the City.2 The Zoning Code flatly forbids living or working in recreational vehicles anywhere within the City limits. (Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.100.070(C)(4) (“Recreational vehicles may be stored on properties if placement conforms to applicable setback requirements, but shall not be occupied or used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other purposes”); see id. § 17.04.080 (“…no uses shall be established, substituted, expanded, constructed, altered, moved, or otherwise changed … except in conformity with the Zoning Code”).)
1 Those chapters of Title 17 of the Zoning Code containing the sections cited in this brief are attached, for the Court’s convenience, as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Peter Prows. 2 A recreational vehicle (“RV”) is a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer designed for human habitation. (Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.08.119.) Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

5 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The Zoning Code does allow “temporary care unit”, which can include RVs (Zoning Code §

17.08.060), to be established in a “residential district” (§ 17.225.020)—but any temporary care unit “requires a temporary use permit” (§ 17.225.020(A).) Such units are also limited to one per parcel. (Zoning Code § 17.225.020(B)) “[T]he relaxation of any substantive provision of the zoning regulations”—such as allowing residential use of RVs without a use permit—requires a variance. (See Sebastopol Municipal Code §§ 17.420.010 et seq. (prescribing the variance procedure) “the procedure for the relaxation of any substantive provision of the zoning regulations …”).) These particular requirements governing RVs control over any more general provisions of the Zoning Code. (See id. § 17.08.020(A) (“The particular shall control the general.”).) Government Code section 8698.4 exempts “safe parking” projects for the homeless on “a parking lot owned or leased by a city” (para. (c)(1)) with a declared homeless emergency, from “any … zoning … laws” (para. (a)(2)(A)(ii)) and from CEQA (para. (a)(4)). Sebastopol has declared a homeless emergency. (Partial Administrative Record (“PAR”)3 at 133 (approving resolution proclaiming the existence of a local homeless emergency in Sebastopol).) Sebastopol could have relied on this exemption to approve an RV encampment on cityowned or leased property without concern for restrictions in its Zoning Code. But this Government Code section does not provide any exemptions for RV encampments on property not owned or leased by a city.

B. Sebastopol Passes Over Several Potential City-Owned Sites For The RV Encampment
The RV encampment at issue is currently located on City property on Morris Street in Sebastopol. (PAR at 5 (referring to “the relocation of the RVs on Morris Street”).) Because those RVs are located on City-owned property, they are exempt from the Zoning Code prohibition on living in RVs and from any need for CEQA review to allow those RVs to stay. Yet Sebastopol decided to “clear[] Morris Street”. (PAR at 141.)
3 The partial administrative record was previously lodged with the Court. It is attached again, and authenticated, as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Peter Prows, for the Court’s convenience. (See discussion of administrative record in Section IV below.) Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

6 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Sebastopol also considered using a City-owned “Public Works Storage” yard for the RV encampment. (PAR at 8.) “The viability of the [Public Works] Storage Yard has been fully explored, with largely positive results”—except for the $130,000-$290,000 costs required. (PAR at 6-7.) As City-owned property, the Public Works Storage Yard site would also have been exempt from the Zoning Code RV prohibition and from CEQA. Yet Sebastopol rejected this “largely positive” location as well. (PAR at 95.)
Sebastopol has also gone through a normal use permit process, via the Planning Commission, for homeless-shelter projects at a community church. (PAR at 101.) But Sebastopol did not grant a use permit or involve the Planning Commission for the RV encampment here. (Id.) C. Sebastopol Decides To Approve The RV Encampment For Private Property At 845 Gravenstein
Through at least November 17, 2021, Sebastopol had been planning to move the Morris Street RV encampment to the City-owned Public Works Storage yard. (PAR at 85.) On November 18, Sebastopol staff began exploring moving the RV encampment to 845 Gravenstein Highway North in northwest Sebastopol. (Id.)
845 Gravenstein is the site of an abandoned former propane gas service station (PAR at 66 (street-level photo of property, with abandoned AmeriGas building visible)), and is within a quarter mile of a charter school (PAR at 109). It is zoned general commercial. (PAR at 100.) Former propane distribution sites raise obvious concerns for public health. Although there are unresolved “environmental issues” with the site (PAR at 118), there is no evidence this site had ever been cleaned up. There are sufficient environmental concerns about the site for St. Vincent’s to have commissioned a “phase one” environmental site assessment4, but as of the date of the City’s decision that assessment had not been completed (PAR at 123).

After sitting unsold for almost 300 days (PAR at 118), on November 24, 2021, Real Party in Interest St. Vincent entered escrow to purchase 845 Gravenstein (PAR at 85). 4 A “Phase One” environmental site assessment “is a report prepared for a real estate holding that identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_I_environmental_site_assessment) Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

7 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Six days later, on November 30, the Sebastopol City Council first considered moving the RV encampment at Morris Street to 845 Gravenstein, in an arrangement by which Real Party in Interest Sonoma Applied Villages Services (“SAVS”) would lease the property from St. Vincent for the RV encampment. (Id.) The Sebastopol Planning Commission did not review the project first. (Id.) When there’s a “land use issue”, Sebastopol must give notice to all property owners near the site, but Sebastopol did not give notice of this project to property owners nearby to 845 Gravenstein, including members of Friends. (PAR at 95 (City Manager/City Attorney admitting that “[t]hat notice was not given”); Amended Verified Petition For Writ Of Mandate ¶ 7.) The agenda for the November 30 City Council meeting incorrectly stated that the City Council would be considering “City Owned Property” for the encampment. (PAR at 1.) The agenda did not include the statement that Government Code section 65009(b)(2) requires to be included if the City wishes to defend its action based on failure to exhaust, and says nothing about CEQA or any intent by the City to rely on a CEQA exemption. (Id.)
The public commenters, who despite the lack of formal notice had managed to hear about the project by word-of-mouth, were overwhelmingly opposed to the project. (PAR at 105-120.) Those public commenters included several current members of Friends, who objected to the lack of adequate notice and the adverse impacts that the proposed RV encampment would have on their homes, neighborhood, businesses, and school children. (Amended Verified Petition ¶ 24.) Despite this opposition, the City Council passed a motion (Minute Order Number 2021-299) to “approve … the use of 845 Gravenstein Highway North as a site for the temporary RV village”. (PAR at 138.) In a separate motion (also denominated Minute Order Number 2021-299), the City Council also approved execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City and SAVS, which would obligated the City to grant money to SAVS each month to meet its lease payments. (PAR at 140.) The City Council did not consider or approve any variance or exemption from the Zoning Code’s ban on living in RVs, because some of the Councilmembers (erroneously) considered an RV encampment to be an already “permitted” use. (PAR at 101 (“it is a permitted use in our Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

8 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
zoning ordinance for this zone”).) The Council also made no CEQA findings or determination whether a CEQA exemption applied. (See PAR at 138-140 (no CEQA determination).)5 At the same hearing, the Council also resolved to “prohibit[] RVs from moving into [845 Gravenstein]” until the RV parking concerns at Morris Street are “addressed and resolved” per modifications of the City’s parking rules. (PAR 141-142.) Sebastopol has not yet adopted any changes to its parking rules.

This suit timely followed.

III. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A WRIT
CCP § 1094.5 compels a court to “set aside” (para. (f)) agency action, and authorizes the court to “enjoin[]” the agency (para. (f)), if the agency has committed “any prejudicial abuse of discretion” (para. (b)). “Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law”. (Id. para. (b).)
The City maintains that administrative mandamus is not available because, despite passing a motion to “approve” the RV encampment (PAR 138), it is a “fallacy” that the City actually “approved” the encampment. (Opposition To Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application (filed February 1, 2022) at 13:9-10.) If administrative mandamus is not available, then traditional mandamus lies to compel the City to require a variance or use permit for the RV encampment. A writ of mandate will lie to “compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station,” (CCP § 1085) “where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law.” (CCP § 1086.) Mandamus is proper to compel a city to comply with applicable local ordinances. (Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona (2018) 28 5 A few days later, City staff report filing a “Notice of Exemption” with the County. (Declaration of Kari Svanstrom (filed February 1, 2022), Exhibit 2.) If that notice was effective, its filing might render any CEQA challenges to the approval untimely. (See Public Resources Code § 21167(d).) That statute of limitations requires that the “public agency has … determined that a project is not subject to [CEQA].” (Id.) Here, the Council never made any CEQA determinations: CEQA is not mentioned in any of Council’s motions. Because the Council never determined that the project is not subject to CEQA, staff’s filing of the notice of exemption is likely ineffective to trigger the statute of limitations. To simplify this action, however, Petitioner has dropped its CEQA claim. Of course, if the Court agrees that a use permit or variance is required for this RV encampment, the City would need to do CEQA before granting those approvals in the future.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

9 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Cal.App.5th 1159, 1185–1187.) “[T]he judicial inquiry in an ordinary mandamus proceeding addresses whether the public entity’s action was arbitrary, capricious or entirely without evidentiary support, and whether it failed to conform to procedures required by law.” (People for Ethical Operation of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement v. Spitzer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 391, 407, internal quotation marks and citation marks omitted.) When a city fails to require a necessary permit before allowing a project to proceed, mandamus will lie to enforce the city’s duty to require the permit. (Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 412 (“we conclude plaintiffs' allegations that no building permits may be issued for the project without a planned development permit identifies a ministerial duty that City owes the public and that may be enforced by writ of mandate”).)
Here, Sebastopol did not proceed in the manner required by law, and prejudicially abused its discretion, or failed to comply with applicable local ordinances, when it rushed to approve the RV encampment for 845 Gravenstein, even though the Zoning Code prohibits living in RVs and no variance or use permit was applied for or issued.

IV. A NOTICED MOTION IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE
Writ actions, whether in traditional or administrative mandamus, are “in the nature of a law and motion hearing”, brought to trial through a “noticed motion, styled as a motion for judgment on the writ”. (California Practice Guide: Administrative Law Ch. 20-E, §§ 20:230-20:231 (citing CCP § 1094).) Petitioner properly brings this motion for judgment on the writ.

Evidence in administrative mandamus may properly be presented through petitioner’s preparation and submission of a partial administrative record, especially where, as here, there is no claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the agency’s decision. (See Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 355 (“[a] partial record of an administrative proceeding is sufficient for the purposes of section 1094.5[a] if it provides the reviewing court a basis for the affirmance or reversal of the … decision, and establishes where in the proceedings the administrative body proceeded in excess of its jurisdiction, or denied a fair hearing or abused its discretion”).) Petitioner has previously lodged a partial administrative record, and has attached and authenticated it again, for the Court’s convenience, as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Peter Prows.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

10 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
In traditional mandamus, “the trial court has broad discretion to decide a case on the basis of declarations and other documents rather than live, oral testimony.” (California School Employees Ass’n v. Del Norte County Unified School District (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1405.) The Court can grant the writ on the basis of the declaration of Peter Prows and the administrative record documents attached to it, the verified amended petition, plus whatever evidence the other parties submit in opposition.

V. ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS (CCP § 1094.5(B)): SEBASTOPOL

PREJUDICIALLY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN APPROVING
THE ILLEGAL RV ENCAMPMENT (COUNTS 1-3)
A. The City’s Approval Of The RV Encampment Violates The Zoning Code’s Ban On Living In RVs (First Count)
The first count in the petition alleges an abuse of discretion because the City approved the RV encampment despite the Zoning Code’s prohibition on residential use of RVs. Sebastopol approved an RV encampment at 845 Gravenstein, intended to be “primary residences”, without any variances. (See Section II.C above.) Yet the Sebastopol Zoning Code forbids living or working in recreational vehicles anywhere within the City limits:

C. Restrictions on Certain Uses.
[…]

4. Recreational vehicles may be stored on properties if placement conforms to applicable setback requirements, but shall not be occupied or used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other purposes. (Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.100.070(C)(4) (underlining added).) This particular prohibition controls over any more general provisions of the Zoning Code. (See id. § 17.08.020(A) (“The particular shall control the general.”).)
This prohibition is to “apply throughout Sebastopol”. (Id. § 17.100.010.) “Except as otherwise allowed by the Zoning Code, no uses shall be established, substituted, expanded, constructed, altered, moved, or otherwise changed … .” (See id. § 17.04.080.) “Zoning consistency shall be required for all … structures hereinafter erected, constructed, repaired or moved … , and for the use of vacant land or for a change in the character of the use of land, within any district established by this code.” (Id. § 17.400.060.) Because Sebastopol approved an RV encampment Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

11 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
even though the Zoning Code bans RV encampments in Sebastopol, Sebastopol abused its discretion by not complying with the law. This case is as simple as that.

The City Council’s approval of the RV encampment cannot reasonably be characterized as the approval of a variance from the Zoning Code prohibition on living on RVs. (See Sebastopol Municipal Code §§ 17.420.010 et seq. (prescribing “the procedure for the relaxation of any substantive provision of the zoning regulations …”).) The City Council nowhere characterized its decision as a variance. Nor could it have: variances are decided by the Planning Commission. (Id. § 17.420.030; see id. Table 17.400-1 (variance decisions made by the Planning Commission).) The City has asserted that RV encampments may be allowed as a “temporary care unit.” (Declaration of Kari Svanstrom (filed February 1, 2022) ¶ 10.) The City is wrong. The Zoning Code does allow “temporary care unit”, which can include one RV (Zoning Code § 17.08.060), to be established in a “residential district” (§ 17.225.020). But 845 Gravenstein is not in a residential district: it is zoned general commercial. (PAR at 100.) Regardless, any temporary care unit “requires a temporary use permit” and is limited to one per parcel. (Zoning Code § 17.225.020(A).) Yet the City approved the RV encampment without any use permit.

The City Councilmembers who viewed an RV encampment to be a “permitted” use were just wrong. The Zoning Code flatly bans residential use of RVs. (Sebastopol Municipal Code §

17.100.070(C)(4).) This particular prohibition controls over any more general provisions of the Zoning Code. (See id. § 17.08.020(A) (“The particular shall control the general.”) .) For example, while the Zoning Code generally permits a “homeless shelter” on properties zoned “General Commercial” (Zoning Code Table 17.25-1), that general permission does not override the particular prohibition on residential use of RVs. So while a traditional full-service homeless shelter facility, where individual rooms for people are all under the same roof, would be permitted, an RV encampment for the homeless is prohibited. (See also Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.08.100 (defining “Homeless shelter” to include a “facility” with “individual rooms”, but excluding any facility with “individual dwelling units”).) An RV encampment at 845 Gravenstein is not permitted.

The City insists its “ministerial” decision that the RV encampment is a permitted use (Opposition To Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application [etc.] (filed February 1, 2022) at 18:27-28) should Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

12 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
be entitled to some kind of deference (id. at 17). But “ministerial … actions do not merit such deference”, and are reviewed according to the Court’s “independent judgment”. (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 7.) Nor is there any good reason to defer to the City’s interpretation here. Its interpretation cannot be reconciled with the plain text of the Zoning Code, which flatly forbids residential use of RVs without a variance or (in a residential district) a use permit. And that interpretation was hardly the result of the City’s considered interpretation of its Code: its interpretation was slapped together literally overnight between November 17, when the City was still considering the Public Works Storage facility (which is exempt from Zoning Code restrictions), and November 18, when staff became aware of 845 Gravenstein. (See Declaration of Kari Svanstrom (filed February 1, 2022), Ex. 1 (November 18 memorandum from staff re: “Zoning Analysis for 845 Gravenstein Hwy N”).) The City’s rushed interpretation, which cannot be squared with the plain text of the Zoning Code that flatly forbids residential use of RVs, is owed no deference.

Sebastopol abused its discretion in approving an RV encampment over the Zoning Code’s flat prohibition on RV encampments.

B. Sebastopol’s Approval Violated Its Permitting Procedures (Second Count) The petition’s second count alleges an abuse of discretion because the City’s approval did not follow its own permitting procedures. Sebastopol agreed with SAVS “to permit” the RV encampment. (PAR at 18.) But the Zoning Code requires permits to be preceded by applications, fees, review and recommendation by the Planning Department, and CEQA compliance. (Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.400.030(D).) But none of that was done here: the RV encampment project came straight to City Council. (See Section II.C above.) The City Council abused its discretion in not following its own permitting procedures before deciding to permit the RV encampment here.

C. Sebastopol Did Not Give The Required Notice (Third Count) The petition’s third count alleges an abuse of discretion because the City did not give the public the advance notice the Zoning Code required. The Zoning Code requires that the public be given at least 12 days notice for variances, and that the notice include specific notice by mail to owners of all properties within 600 feet of the site; even a temporary use of a year under the Zoning Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

13 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Code requires 12 days-notice to adjacent property owners. (Sebastopol Municipal Code §

17.400.050 and Table 17.400-2, id. at § 17.460.020(B)(2) .) Because the Zoning Code prohibits residential RV use (see Section V.A), such use could be allowed only with a variance. But here, because certain City Council members viewed this RV encampment as an already “permitted” use under the Zoning Code without any need for a variance (see Section II.C above), the Council acknowledged that the notice required for a variance was not given (see id.). Because the notice required to permit this nonpermitted use was not given, Sebastopol abused its discretion.

D. The City’s Violation Of The Law Was Prejudicial
These violations of the law were prejudicial. The City failed to appreciate that residential RV uses are banned by its Zoning Code, and would require at least a variance. But the real parties likely could not get a variance here. To get a variance, they would need to show that “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances” apply to the property, that a variance “is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights”, and “will not … materially affect adversely” the neighborhood. (Sebastopol Municipal Code § 17.420.020.) But no extraordinary circumstances apply to this property: the City could have more easily permitted the same project on City-owned property, but declined to do so simply to save on costs. (See Section II.B above.) Real parties made no complaints at the November 30 hearing about their property rights should the project be denied, nor do they have any property right under California law to operate an RV encampment where the zoning forbids it. And the neighborhood will face material adverse effects to the environment, schools, and businesses—impacts that could have been more fully fleshed out with the Planning Department permit analysis and CEQA review the City was required, but failed, to do. (See Section II.C above.) The City’s abuse of discretion was prejudicial.

VI. TRADITIONAL MANDAMUS (CCP § 1085): SEBASTOPOL FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN ORDINANCES (COUNT 4)
The City disputes that administrative mandamus is available to Petitioner here. If City is correct, then Petitioner may proceed in the alternative by traditional mandamus. (See CCP § 1086 (traditional mandamus available when there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law).) The Zoning Code requires the City to “require conformance with [] the Zoning Code”. (Zoning Code § 17.470.020.) The Zoning Code flatly prohibits RV encampments without at least a Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

14 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
variance. (See Sections II.A and V.A above.) Yet the City approved the RV encampment, and has committed itself to providing ongoing funding, without any variance. Rather than requiring conformance with the Zoning Code, as it requires the City to do, the City is sanctioning an ongoing violation of the Zoning Code. Mandamus lies to compel the City to either require the real parties to obtain a variance, or else remove the RV encampment from 845 Gravenstein.

VII. CONCLUSION
Sebastopol’s approval of this project was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a dereliction of its duties under the Zoning Code. A peremptory writ of mandamus should issue ordering the City to set aside its November 30, 2021 approval of the project, or to compel the City to either require the real parties to obtain a variance or else remove the RV encampment from 845 Gravenstein.

DATED: February 10, 2022 BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
By: /s/ Peter Prows
Peter Prows
Attorneys for Petitioner

FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, and my business address is 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935, San Francisco, California 94104.

On February 10, 2022, at Daly City, California, I served the following document(s)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE WRIT OF

MANDAMUS
on:

Edward Grutzmacher
Meyers Nave
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 556-1531 (phone)
(916) 556-1516 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
Adrienne Lauby
Gregory Carlton Fearon
Sonoma Applied Villages Services
1275 4th Street, Suite 101
Box 196
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 861-0646 (phone)
(916) 556-1516 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
Robert M. Bone
Law Office of Robert M. Bone
645 4th Street, Suite 205
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 525-8999 (phone)
(707) 542-4752 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: On the date written above, I e-mailed the documents to the persons on the service list at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that transmission was unsuccessful.

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: On the date written above, I deposited with the United States Postal Service a true copy of the attached document in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as shown on the service list. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this declaration.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on February 10, 2022, at Daly City, California.

Arlene Won
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

1 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
Tony Francois (CBN 184100)
Peter Prows (CBN 257819)

BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 402-2700
Facsimile: (415) 398-5630
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No. SCV-270053

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE WRIT
Hearing Date: April 27, 2022
Time: 3:00 PM
Department: 17
FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL, a
California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation,
Petitioner,
v.

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, acting by and through
the Sebastopol City Council,
Respondent.

SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGES SERVICES, a
California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation;
and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL DISTRICT

COUNCIL OF SONOMA COUNTY,
INCORPORATED, a California nonprofit mutual
benefit corporation,

Real Parties in Interest.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Sonoma
4/20/2022 1:08 PM
Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the Court
By: Lorena Deloza, Deputy Clerk
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

2 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4 II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4 A. The City is wrong that mandamus is not available. .................................................................. 4 B. The City’s concerns about the Partial Administrative Record are misplaced. ......................... 5 C. The Opposition’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is an inadmissible post-hoc rationalization, is not entitled to deference, and is wrong. ............................................................... 6

1. The City’s interpretation of “homeless shelter” is wrong ..................................................... 6

2. The City’s arguments regarding living in RVs are wrong. ................................................... 8 III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 10

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

3 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173 ....................................... 7 Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1159 ....................... 4 Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408 ............................................... 4 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1574 ................ 7 Harrington v. Davis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th at 423 .............................................................................. 7 People for Ethical Operation of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement v. Spitzer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 391 ............................................................................................................... 4 Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1086 ........... 7 Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(a) .................................................................................................... 5 Zoning Code § 14.400.050.................................................................................................................... 5 Zoning Code § 17.08.020(A) .......................................................................................................... 8, 10 Zoning Code § 17.08.060...................................................................................................................... 6 Zoning Code § 17.08.100...................................................................................................................... 6 Zoning Code § 17.100.070(C)(4)...................................................................................................... 8, 9 Zoning Code § 17.470.020.................................................................................................................... 4 Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

4 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
Friends of Northwest Sebastopol (“Friends”) files this reply in support of its February 10, 2022, Motion for Judgment on the Writ (“Motion”), in response to City of Sebastopol’s April 15, 2022,1 Opposition2 to the Motion (“Opposition”). Friends’ February 10, 2022, Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Writ (“Memorandum”) explains that the City made an illegal decision on November 30, 2021, to permit Real Party in Interest SAVS to use the property at 845 Gravenstein Highway North (the Site) as an RV encampment, in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance, which broadly prohibits living in RVs in the City. See Memorandum at 5-8, id. at 10-13.

The City’s Opposition fails to rebut the arguments presented in Friends’ Memorandum, as detailed below. The Court should grant the motion, rule that the use of the Site for an RV encampment violates the City Zoning Ordinance, and issue the writ directing the City to rescind its approval of the Site for that use.

II. ARGUMENT
A. The City is wrong that mandamus is not available.

The City’s arguments against the availability of mandamus in this case fail to address the authorities cited in Friends’ Memorandum, at 8-9. Mandamus is proper to compel a city to comply with applicable local ordinances. Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1159, 1185–1187. “[T]he judicial inquiry in an ordinary mandamus proceeding addresses whether the public entity’s action was arbitrary, capricious or entirely without evidentiary support, and whether it failed to conform to procedures required by law.” People for Ethical Operation of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement v. Spitzer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 391, 407 (internal quotation marks and citation marks omitted). When a city fails to require a necessary permit before allowing a project to proceed, mandamus will lie to enforce the city’s duty to require the permit.

Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 412 (“we conclude plaintiffs' allegations that no building permits may be issued for the project without a planned development 1 The motion is set for hearing on April 27, 2022. The City’s opposition was due on April 14, 2022, but was filed and served on April 15, 2022, after counsel for Friends inquired when to expect it. 2 Neither Real Party-In-Interest has opposed the Motion or joined in the City’s Opposition.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

5 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
permit identifies a ministerial duty that City owes the public and that may be enforced by writ of mandate”). See Zoning Code § 17.470.020 (City must “require conformance with [] the Zoning Code[.]”)
If SAVS’ use of the Site for an RV encampment is not a permitted use, then SAVS needs a variance at least. For a variance, the City is required to hold a hearing. Zoning Code, § 14.400.050 and Table 17.400-2, hearing requirement for variances). And where a hearing is required by law, administrative mandamus is a proper remedy. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(a) (“Where the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given”).

B. The City’s concerns about the Partial Administrative Record are misplaced.

The City’s complaint about Friends’ Partial Administrative Record is belied by the fact that almost all of the City’s record citations are to documents contained in Friends’ Partial Record. The only other citation relevant to the City’s November 30, 2021, action is Planning Director Svanstrom’s November 18, 2021, memorandum (Record at 278-80), which Friends agrees belongs in the record and would have included in its Partial Record if it had been publicly available when this case was filed.

The City concedes that this case is about the legal interpretation of the Zoning Code, see Opposition at 13-15 (arguing for City’s preferred interpretation of the Zoning Code), not factual determinations by City staff, and thus implicitly concedes that the substantial evidence rule does not apply and that Friends’ Partial Record (properly supplemented with the Planning Director’s November 18, 2021, memorandum) is adequate for the Court to resolve the legal questions in this case: whether an RV encampment is a homeless shelter under the Zoning Ordinance’s definition of that term, and whether the Code’s prohibition on living in RVs in the City means what is says.

Most of the record materials to which the City’s brief cites are included in Friends’ Partial Administrative Record, which includes all materials in the City’s Record up through and including page 152 of the City’s record. See April 15 Notice of Lodging Admin Record, Exhibit A at 1 (Index of Record). At various points throughout its Opposition, the City cites Record pages 1, 4-12, 18-21, 35-36, 38, 82-83, 100-01, 133, and 140, all of which the City concedes are included in Friends’ Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

6 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
Partial Administrative Record. The City only cites three other portions of its own record, one of which is Planning Director Svanstrom’s November 18, 2021, memorandum. The other two items cited are either separate permitting proceedings from three years ago, or post-decisional materials that are not properly within the scope of the record.

Nor is the City’s inclusion of 13,000 pages of post-decision emails (See Notice of Lodging, Exhibit A, at 4 (emails dating from December 2021 through March 2022, Record pages 10,769 – 23,133) in its Administrative Record helpful to the parties or the Court.

C. The Opposition’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is an inadmissible post-hoc rationalization, is not entitled to deference, and is wrong.

The City rests its entire Opposition on the assertions that (a) the Site is a homeless shelter under the Zoning Code, and (b) the Zoning Code’s prohibition on living in RVs in the City does not mean what it says. If either of the City’s two arguments is wrong, then Friends must prevail.

1. The City’s interpretation of “homeless shelter” is wrong Friends’ Memorandum demonstrates that the Site’s use by SAVS is not a homeless shelter.

Memorandum at 11. See also Amended Petition, ¶ 48, at 8:22-9:2. The Zoning Code defines “homeless shelter” as “not developed with individual dwelling units.” Code § 17.08.100 (definition of “homeless shelter”). The RVs at the Site are the only “shelter” for anybody occupying the Site.

There are no other living accommodations there. Without the RVs, there is no shelter. This will always be true of an RV encampment. So the fact that the RVs are both separate living spaces and the only living spaces on the Site has to play a role in interpreting whether the Zoning Code definition can be read to include an RV encampment.

Many RVs are obviously dwelling units as defined in the Zoning Code. “Dwelling unit means a room or group of internally connected, habitable rooms that have sleeping, cooking, and sanitation facilities[.]” Zoning Code § 17.08.060 (definition of “dwelling unit”). Any RV with a kitchenette and bath is a dwelling unit. And by nature, RVs are “individual” dwelling units. And the only habitations located at the Site that are dwelling units of any kind are the RVs.

The definition of homeless shelter excludes shelters with “individual dwelling units.” Allowing for an RV encampment to be a homeless shelter means that the only places that the homeless residents “dwell” are RVs, which RVs are at the same time not “dwelling units” at all (to Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

7 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
avoid them being “individual” dwelling units). This is an untenable interpretation of the Ordinance, because it makes “dwelling unit” not mean anything. In context, and allowing for a reasonable interpretation that makes sense of the whole statute, a homeless shelter does not include any facility where everyone lives in individual habitations detached from the facility.

The RV encampment at the Site is not a “homeless shelter.” The City’s claim that “homeless shelter” includes RV encampments rests entirely on its interpretation of the definition. But the only material in the Record where the Court may find that interpretation is in Planning Director Svanstrom’s November 18, 2021, memo. Record at 278-80. Director Svanstrom’s separately filed declaration (even if it helped the City’s interpretation) is extra-record and post-decisional and may not be relied upon by the City to explain its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1574, 1594-95 (extra record material in both traditional and administrative mandamus limited to evidence that truly could not have been presented at the time of the challenged decision); Southern California Edison Co. v.

Public Utilities Commission (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1086, 1111 (agency decision may only be upheld on basis articulated by the agency at time of decision; court may not accept counsel’s post hoc rationalization).3
The Director’s memo misstates the definition of “homeless shelter” by replacing “individual dwelling unit” with the spurious term “fully independent dwelling units.” Since the memo does not interpret the Ordinance’s words, the City’s reliance on it demonstrates failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The memo states that RVs are not “fully functional dwelling units[.]” So, the Director’s memo agrees that RVs are dwelling units, just not fully functional ones. But whether or not dwellings are “fully functional” or “fully independent” is not what the definition of “homeless shelter” asks – it asks if they are “individual.” Record at 279. This is not even an interpretation of 3 The authorities the City cites for deference to its interpretation are no help to it. As Harrington v.

Davis emphasizes, courts have “the ultimate responsibility for the construction of the statute[]” and within that ultimate responsibility even deference based on Yamaha Corp. is situational. 16 Cal.App.5th 420, 434-35. The deference accorded the cites of Davis and Anderson in each case was the fruit of interpretations made in the course of extensive permitting processes, Anderson First Coalition (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1177, Harrington (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th at 423, 429-30, and not an overnight two paragraph partial analysis of the relevant code sections that misstates the section it does address, and then describes itself as provisional. See Record at 278-79.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

8 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
the Ordinance, much less a reasonable one, and certainly nothing entitled to deference under the authorities cited. And to top it off, the Director’s memo is tentative: “a definite project description needs to be provided, including a site plan and operational model, for this to be appropriately reviewed. This needs to be reviewed by outside counsel prior to making a final determination.” So the November 18, 2021, memo is not even the Planning Director’s informed or final opinion about whether an RV encampment is within the Code’s definition of homeless shelter.

Nor does the City’s Record support the Planning Director’s supposed interpretation. In its hearing package for the November 30, 2021, hearing, City staff describes those who would move into the Site as “RV dwellers.” Record at 007 (under heading “Site Recommendation”). Presumably the “RV dwellers” “dwell” in “dwelling units.” The proposed MOU with SAVS, presented to the Council at that meeting by City staff, describes the proposed use of the Site as “a mix of vans, trailers and RVs which are used as primary residences[.]” Record at 018. And a presentation made by SAVS and included in the November 30, 2021, hearing package describes the Site use as “no permanent structures, just cars and RVs.” Record at 055. So there is no facility at the Site with individual rooms (as allowed by the definition of “homeless shelter”), only a lot full of “primary residences” consisting solely of the RVs.

It stretches credulity to insist that, absent “permanent structures,” the “primary residences” in which the “RV dwellers” dwell are not individual dwelling units within the proper meaning of the Zoning Code’s definition of homeless shelter.

2. The City’s arguments regarding living in RVs are wrong.

Besides the flaw that the Director’s memo does not even interpret the definition of “homeless shelter,” it falls flat for not addressing the Zoning Code’s prohibition on living in RVs in the City.

There is simply no City interpretation of the Zoning Code’s RV prohibitions to which the Court can defer.
“Recreational vehicles may be stored on properties if placement conforms to applicable setback requirements, but shall not be occupied or used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other purposes.” Zoning Code § 17.100.070(C)(4). This particular provision controls over more general ones. Zoning Code § 17.08.020(A). To the extent there is any ambiguity in the definition of Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

9 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
“homeless shelter,” this more particular prohibition on living in RVs controls over the more general shelter definition. They have to be read together to make sense of the whole.

The Planning Director’s memo does not interpret the Zoning Code’s prohibition on living in RVs within the City, or any of the other provisions related to RVs that the City cites in its Opposition. Record at 278-279. Nor do any of the City Council member or City staff statements at the November 30, 2021, hearing interpret or address the Zoning Code prohibition on living in RVs.

Instead, the City’s Opposition presents the Court with a post-hoc rationalization that the Zoning Code’s prohibition on living in RVs applies only to RVs that have been stored.

The City’s post-hoc interpretation does not work grammatically. The sentence in question has one subject: “recreational vehicles.” The sentence then applies two operations to the subject:
“may be stored” and “shall not be occupied or used for residential … purposes.” Zoning Code, §

17.100.070(C)(4). Each of the two operations (“may be stored” and “shall not be occupied or used”) refer back to the same subject – “recreational vehicles.” “May not be occupied” does not relate to “stored recreational vehicles” but to all recreational vehicles. The sentence sets forth two alternatives: you may do the first (store) but not the second (occupy). It does not allow storage, and then limit what may be done with stored RVs.

Nor does this make any more sense when that “interpretation” is applied to RV encampments. The RVs at the Site (especially those that don’t move on their own) would easily be understood as “stored” there, and under the City’s reasoning could not be lived in. But one would also say that no “lived in” RV would be considered “stored” in the normal use of that term. That makes the City’s argument inescapably circular: you can live in an RV, unless it is being stored, which it would not be if you are living in it.

A further implication is that the Zoning Code allows anyone to live in an RV anywhere on the City streets (including on Morris Street, despite the fact that the City has described the Morris Street encampment as illegal, see Opposition at 7:4), on the grounds that one could not call the RVs lining Morris Street “stored.”
The fact that the City’s Ordinances allow the limited occupation of an RV or two in limited circumstances, with permits, merely shows that the prohibition on living in RVs is otherwise Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

10 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
universal. See Friends’ Memo at 9:11-15 (discussing the limited allowances for RVs). And this is also governed by the Code section under which the particular controls over the general. The particular allowance for single RVs per parcel in very limited circumstances, with permits, controls over the general prohibition on living in RVs in the City. Zoning Code § 17.08.020(A).

Even the City’s history of allowing the use of RVs on a limited basis for housing the homeless belies its offered post-hoc rationalization that there is no prohibition on living in RVs in the City. As demonstrated by the City’s Opposition and Record, those other instances involved a requirement for permits. See Opposition at 14:14-17; Record at 195 (installation of 2 RV pads for housing the homeless would normally require a temporary use permit and environmental review).

Clearly, the Zoning Code forbids living in RVs throughout the City, except in those few limited exceptions requiring a permit, and the particular prohibition on living in RVs controls the more general allowance for the operation of homeless shelters. Reading the two provisions harmoniously, the RV encampment on the Site is not a “homeless shelter” under the Zoning Ordinance, and required at very least a variance, which the City failed to require.

III. CONCLUSION
The operation of the RV encampment at the Site is not a permitted use under the Zoning Code, and the City’s permission to SAVS to so use the Site was illegal and not in accordance with law, as laid out in Friends’ Motion and supporting Memorandum. Nothing in the City’s Opposition changes that.

The City successfully opposed early relief in this matter and refused to cooperate in any expedited treatment of the case. Having accomplished that, it now says it is too late for the Court to do anything because the Site is occupied. But it is equally true that the harms about which Friends have been concerned are now occurring, making the City’s failure to proceed in the manner required by law prejudicial.

The City has other sites where it can relocate the encampment on City owned property, see Record at 6-8, 95, where it could legally operate an RV encampment without respect to zoning or CEQA. The City could also engage as it has in the past, and as Friends indicated its support of in the Amended Petition, in a good faith effort to locate smaller RV parking resources throughout the City Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

11 CASE NO. SCV-270053
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

REPLY BRIEF
instead of concentrating them in one neighborhood. See Record at 101. As the City itself has shown, Record at 192-225, it has done so in the past and should be able to continue to do so going forward.

One thing is clear – SAVS is not engaged in a permitted use of the Site. The Court should rule to that effect,4 and the writ should issue to order the City to rescind its approval of the project at the Site or to require a permit of SAVS for continued operation of the Site. Real Parties in Interest will then have the necessary incentives to seek legal alternatives, with the support of the entire community.

DATED: April 20, 2022 BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
By: /s/ Tony Francois
Tony Francois
Attorneys for Petitioner

FRIENDS OF NORTHWEST SEBASTOPOL
4 Friends notes the City’s request for a statement of decision. While Friends’ view is that this case only involves legal issues, it does not object to the issuance of a statement of decision in this matter.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, and my business address is 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935, San Francisco, California 94104.

On April 20, 2022, at San Francisco, California, I served the following document(s)

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE WRIT on:

Edward Grutzmacher
Meyers Nave
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 556-1531 (phone)
(916) 556-1516 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
Adrienne Lauby
Gregory Carlton Fearon
Sonoma Applied Villages Services
1275 4th Street, Suite 101
Box 196
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 861-0646 (phone)
(916) 556-1516 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
Robert M. Bone
Law Office of Robert M. Bone
645 4th Street, Suite 205
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 525-8999 (phone)
(707) 542-4752 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: On the date written above, I e-mailed the documents to the persons on the service list at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on April 20, 2022, at San Francisco, California.

Arlene Won
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

APPLICATION TYPE
D Administrative Permit Review
D Alcohol Use Permit/ ABC Transfer
D Conditional Use Permit
City of Sebastopol
Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 9S472
(707) 823-6167
D Lot Line Adjustment/Merger
□ Preapplication Conference

MASTER PLANNING

APPLICATION FORM
Temporary Use Permit
Tree Removal Permit
Variance
D Design Review
□ Preliminary Review
D Sign Permit
[SJ'
□
□
□ Other __________ _
This application includes the checklist(s) or supplementform(s) for the type of permit requested: 6t Yes □ No

REVIEW/HEARING BODIES
□ Staff/Admin □ Design Review/Tree Board □ Planning Commission □ City Council □ Other __ _

APPLICATION FOR
Street Address : 845 Gravenstein Highway N. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 060-261 -030-000 Present Use of Property: Temporary Housing Zoning/General Plan Designation : General Commercial

APPLICANT INFORMATION
Property Owner Name: St. Vincent de Paul Society
Mailing Address : 5671 Redwood Drive Phone: 07-584-1579 City/State/ZIP: Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Email : [email protected] Date: 9-13-2022
Authorized Agent/Applicant Name: Sonoma Applied Village Services Mailing Address : 1275 4th Street, Suite #101 ,Box 196 Phone: 707.861 .0646 City/State/ZIP: Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Em ai I: [email protected] Signature: Date: 9-13-2022
Contact Name (If different from above): Patrick Oloughlin Phone/Email : 707.800.5784 / [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITS REQUESTED (ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NEEDED) Samona Applied Village Services (SAVS) - wishes to continue operation of the existing safe parking / RV Village program that opened February 2022. The service provides chronically homeless with a safe place to live and support services designed to provide stability and a path to permanent housing. The site has a 24-hour on-site manager, a village manager and a village council and operates quietly.

The village has 18 RVs and 25 clients with 24-hour security and has benefited Sebastopol by moving RVs from Morris street to this location.

CITY USE ONL V
Fill out upon receipt: Action: Action Date:

Application Date : Staff/ Admi n: Date: ____ _
--- --------- Planning File#: Planning Director: Date: ____ _ -------- ------------ Received By: Design Review/Tree Board: Date: ____ _ Fee(s): - $.,....------- Planning Commission : Date: ____ _ -------- ------------ Completeness Date: City Council: Date: ____ _ -------- 1 9/22/22
2022-073
KS/NR
3000.00
9/27/22
ATTACHMENT 2

APPLICATION MATERIALS
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

SITE DATA TABLE
If an item is not applicable to your project, please indicate "Not Applicable" or "N/ A" in the appropriate box; do not leave cells blank.

SITE DATA TABLE

REQUIRED/ ZONING

EXISTING PROPOSED

STANDARD
Zoning N/A General Commercial General Commercial
Use N/A RV Village RV Village
Lot Size 0.95 Acre 0.95 Acre
Square Feet of Building/Structures No Structures No Structures (if multiple structures include all
separately)
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R) FAR FAR FAR
Lot Coverage % of lot % of lot % of lot
sq . ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.

Parking Spaces for 25 Cars Spaces for 25 Cars
Building Height RV's 20' RV's 20'
Number of Stories No Structures No Structures
Building Setbacks - Primary
Front
Secondary Front Yard (corner lots)
Side - Interior
Rear
Building Setbacks - Accessory
Front
Secondary Front Yard (corner lots)
Side - Interior
Rear
Special Setbacks (if applicable)
Other(. )
Number of Residential Units Dwelling Unit(s) 18 Dwelling Unit(s) 18 Dwelling Unit(s) Residential Density 1 unit per sq. ft. 1 unit per 2,298 sq . ft. 1 unit per 2.298 sq. ft.

Useable Open Space sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.

Grading Grading should be Total: cu . yds
minimized to the Cut: cu . yds.
extent feasible to Fill: cu. yds.
reflect existing N/A Off-Haul: ___ cu. yds
topography and No Grading
protect significant site
features, including
trees.
% of lot 5% % of lot Impervious Surface Area N/A
sq. ft. 2,068 sq. ft.
% of lot 95% % of lot Pervious Surface Area N/A
sq . ft. 39,303 sq. ft.
2 Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION

1. All Materials submitted in conjunction with t his form sha ll be considered a part of t his application .

2. This application will not be considered filed and processing may not be initiated until the Planning Department determines that the submittal is complete wit h all necessary information and is "accepted as complete." The City wi ll notify the applicant of all application deficiencies no later than 30 days fol lowing application subm ittal.

3. The property owner authorizes the listed authorized agent(s)/contact(s) to appear before the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review/Tree Board and Planning Director and to file applications, plans, and other information on the owner's beha lf.

4. The Owner shal l inform the Planning Department in writing of any changes.

5. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: As part of this application, applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards, committees and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this appl ication or the adoption of the environmental document which accompanies it or otherwise arises out of or in connection with the City's action on this application. This indemnification sha ll include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection w ith t he City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City.

If, for any reason, any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shal l remain in ful l force and effect.

NOTE: The purpose of the indemnification agreement is to allow the City to be held harmless in terms of potential legal costs and liabilities in conjunction with permit processing and approval.

6. REPRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION OF PLANS: I hereby authorize the Planning Department to reproduce plans and exhibits as necessary for the processing of th is application. I understand that this may include circulating copies of the reduced plans for public inspection. Multiple signatures are required when plans are prepared by mu ltiple professionals.

7. NOTICE OF MAILING: Email addresses will be used for sending out staff reports and agendas to appl icants, their representatives, property owners, and others to be notified.

8. DEPOSIT ACCOUNT INFORMATION: Rather than flat fees, some applications require a 'Deposit'. The in itial deposit amount is based on typical processing costs. However, each application is different and wi ll experience different costs. The City staff and City consultant time, in addition to other permit processing costs, (i.e., legal advertisements and copying costs are charged against the application deposit). If charges exceed the initial deposit, the applicant will receive billing from the City's Finance department. If at the end of the application process, charges are less than the deposit, the City Finance department will refu nd the remaining monies. Deposit accounts will be held open for up to 90 days after action or withdrawal for the City to complete any miscellaneous clean up items and to account for all project related costs.

9. NOTICE OF ORDINANCE/PLAN MODIFICATIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65945(a), please indicate, by checking the boxes below, if you would like to receive a notice from the City of any proposa l to adopt or amend any of the fo llowing plans or ordinances if the City determines that the proposa l is reasonably related to your request for a development permit:

D A general plan D A specific plan
D An ordinance affecting building permits or grading permits D A zoning ordinance Certification
I, the undersigned owner of the subject property, have read this application for a development permit and agree with all of the above and certify that the information, drawings and specifications herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are submitted under penalty of perjury. I hereby grant members of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and City Staff admittance to the subject property as necessary for processing of the project application.

Date: Sep 13, 2022
I, the undersigned applicant, have read this application for a development permit and agree with all of the above and certify that the information, drawings and specifications herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are submitted under penalty of perjury.

Applicant's Signature: Date:

NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant and their representatives to be aware of and abide by City laws and policies. City staff, Boards, Commissions, and the City Counci l will review applications as required by law; however, the applicant has responsibility for determining and fol lowing applicable regu lations. 3 September 22, 2022
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

4 Neighbor Notification
In the interest of being a good neighbor, it is highly recommended that you contact those homes or businesses directly adjacent to, or within the area of your project. Please inform them of the proposed project, including construction activity and possible impacts such as noise, traffic interruptions, dust, larger structures, tree removals, etc.

Many projects in Sebastopol are remodel projects which when initiated bring concern to neighboring property owners, residents, and businesses. Construction activities can be disruptive, and additions or new buildings can affect privacy, sunlight, or landscaping. Some of these concerns can be alleviated by neighbor-to-neighbor contacts early in the design and construction process.

It is a “good neighbor policy” to inform your neighbors so that they understand your project. This will enable you to begin your construction with the understanding of your neighbors and will help promote good neighborhood relationships.

Many times, development projects can have an adverse effect on the tranquility of neighborhoods and tarnish relationships along the way. If you should have questions about who to contact or need property owner information in your immediate vicinity, please contact the Building and Safety Department for information at (707) 823-8597, or the Planning Department at (707) 823-6167.

I have informed site neighbors of my proposed project: ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, or if you will inform neighbors in the future, please describe outreach efforts:

Website Required for Major Projects
Applicants for major development projects (which involves proposed development of 10,000 square feet of new floor area or greater, or 15 or more dwelling units/lots), are required to create a project website in conjunction with submittal of an application for Planning approval (including but not limited to Subdivisions, Use Permits, Rezoning, and Design Review).

Required information may be provided on an existing applicant web site.

The website address shall be provided as part of the application. The website shall be maintained and updated, as needed until final discretionary approvals are obtained for the project.

Such website shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
√ Project description
√ Contact information for the applicant, including address, phone number, and email address √ Map showing project location
√ Photographs of project site
√ Project plans and drawings
We hold monthly community meetings, anyone wishing to attend can email [email protected] SAVS has had continuous community outreach meetings since opening in February 2022.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Location & Zoning Maps
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Site Photographs
Rows of RV, Shower in foreground, community tent on right Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

View from inside property onto Gravenstein Highway
View of Horizon Shine Village from Street
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Site Design
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Site Utilities
Village from above, Gravenstein Highway on the right
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

Area Development Map
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

TEMPORARY RV VILLAGE - SEBASTOPOL

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL AND SONOMA APPLIED VILLAGE SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on 8th day of December, 2021, by and between the City of Sebastopol, located in the County of Sonoma, State of California (CITY), and Sonoma Applied Village Services (SAVS). (Consultant).

City desires to contract with SAVS to furnish professional services in connection with the project described as Opening and Operating an RV Homeless Village, located at 845 Gravenstein Highway, with wrap-around services in Greater Sebastopol for the term 12/08/2021 to 12/31/2022.

PREAMBLE:

1. SAVS has been allocated Continuum of Care funding in the amount of $368,000, and proposes to use those funds to set up and operate an RV Village within City limits, to serve the CITY unhoused, specifically those living in RVs and other vehicles on Morris Street, as well as City-wide.

2. CITY is in need of a safe, healthy, secure, managed location to offer the City’s unhoused currently living in RVs and in other vehicles within City limits, especially on Morris Street and nearby streets.

3. CITY is experiencing a homelessness crisis, and formally declared a homelessness emergency on November 30, 2021. The crisis in the City of Sebastopol has developed into an untenable situation that requires the City’s immediate action, and is well documented by complaints and concerns about health and safety and a developing public nuisance that has had a severe and negative impact on the town. The demand for compassionate and effective action is unanimous, and comes from local businesses, advocates for the unhoused, and the community at large. CITY recognizes that this is a crisis situation, and that there is a need to act immediately and decisively to protect the interests of the unhoused as well as the interests of the community at large.

4. CITY has been informed by SAVS that SAVS expects to be entering into a lease with St Vincent de Paul (“SVDP”) that will allow it use of the property located at 845 Gravenstein Highway North (“SITE”) in Sebastopol, and that SVDP has made a commitment to allow SAVS to use the SITE for one year as a temporary RV Village to serve CITY’s RVs and other vehicular unhoused.

5. It is the understanding of CITY and SAVS that SVDP is in the process of purchasing the SITE specifically to allow it to be used by SAVS for the temporary RV Village. SVDP will need to collect lease payments to cover the mortgage and other “carrying costs” for the period that SAVS is leasing the SITE for this use. SAVS does not have funding for these lease payments.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

6. SAVS has requested that CITY enter into an agreement authorizing use of the SITE for a temporary one year RV Village for Sebastopol’s unhoused, with RVs on or near Morris Street prioritized and seniority (amount of time in Sebastopol) a deciding factor in selection of RV Village residents.

7. SAVS has further requested that CITY reimburse SAVS for the lease payments to SVDP.

SAVS does not have sufficient funds to cover lease payments, because the full $368,000 in Continuum of Care funding is needed by SAVS to set up and operate the temporary RV Village for the one year period.

8. CITY has investigated many other options for addressing the unhealthy and unsafe situation involving the RVs and other lived-in vehicles on Morris Street and nearby streets, and has no other alternatives now, and does not expect other alternatives to develop in the foreseeable future. Sebastopol is dedicated to mitigating the unhealthy, unsafe, and inhumane circumstances occurring on Sebastopol City’s streets (Morris Street in particular) and in Sebastopol’s neighborhoods. The proposal from SAVS, with the support of SVDP, provides a realistic, acceptable option for CITY.

9. CITY and SAVS have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) outlining the essential rights and obligations of both parties. The MOU is attached here as Exhibit A. This Agreement contains additional details regarding the rights and obligations of the parties. It does not supersede the MOU. The terms of this Agreement are to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the MOU. In the event of a conflict between the MOU and this Agreement or any Exhibit, the provisions in the MOU control.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and SAVS for and in consideration of their mutual promises and agreements herein contained do agree as follows:

1. Term of Agreement: SAVS agrees to provide the services described in this Agreement for a one year period beginning January 1, 2022, and continuing until December 31, 2022, unless extended by mutual written Agreement of the parties as provided in paragraph 19 or terminated as provided in paragraph 2.

2. Termination:
a. If SAVS fails to perform, comply with, or observe any of the conditions, terms, or covenants of any of this Agreement, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Agreement, CITY will send SAVS a written notice of default. SAVS will have the right to cure the default within thirty (30) days of the date of the written notice (which notice shall provide reasonable detail of the default and required cure) or, if the breach cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, so long as SAVS is diligently undertaking to cure the breach, SAVS will be allowed to complete said cure within ninety (90) days of the date of the written notice of default. b. If CITY terminates this Agreement for cause, SAVS will be entitled to receive the benefits of this Agreement for all services satisfactorily rendered prior to the termination, Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022

less the amount of damage, if any, sustained by CITY as a result of the breach of the Agreement by SAVS. CITY’s obligations to SAVS will end at the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods, automatically relieving CITY of any obligation to make or continue to provide any benefits of this Agreement to SAVS, and giving CITY the right to proceed with any and all remedies set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to the remedies listed in paragraph c.
c. In the event of a failure by SAVS to comply with any terms or conditions of this Agreement or to provide in any manner activities or other performance in this Agreement, CITY reserves the right to temporarily withhold all or any part of the benefits of this Agreement, or suspend all or part of the Agreement, until CITY is satisfied that corrective action has been taken or completed. The option to withhold benefits is in addition to, and not in lieu of CITY’s right to suspend or terminate this Agreement. In addition, CITY shall have the right of mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity to require SAVS to perform its obligations and covenants under this Agreement or to enjoin acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the provisions of this Agreement.

3. Scope of Services:
a. SAVS Specified Services. SAVS shall, in a manner satisfactory to CITY, perform the services described in Exhibit B (incorporated here by specific reference) and as provided in paragraph 14, Prosecution of Work. In the event of a conflict between the body of this Agreement and any Exhibit, the provisions in the body of this Agreement control. b. Cooperation with CITY. SAVS will cooperate with CITY in the performance of all services and work in this Agreement, and will be available to CITY staff at all reasonable times, subject to the services agreed to by the parties, as described in this Agreement and in Exhibit B.
c. Performance Standard. SAVS will perform all services and work in a manner consistent with the level of competency and standard of care normally observed by a person practicing in SAVS's same discipline and profession in the State of California. CITY has relied upon the professional ability and training of SAVS as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. SAVS hereby agrees to perform under this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards of care, as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of SAVS's performance under this Agreement by CITY will not operate as a waiver or release. If CITY determines that any or all of SAVS's performance under this Agreement is not in accordance with such level of competency and standard of care, CITY, in its sole discretion, shall have the right to do any or all of the following: (a) require SAVS to meet with CITY to review the quality of the its services or work and resolve matters of concern; (b) require SAVS to take action to correct the unsatisfactory performance until it is satisfactory; (c) terminate this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2; or (d) pursue any and all other remedies at law or in equity.

Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of November 15, 2022