CSUMB’s Center for Community Health Engagement (CHE) currently provides outreach and engagement to the residents of the Pajaro River encampment. They are using person-centered and harm reduction approaches to actively develop rapport with current residents based on respect and trust. They help meet residents’ immediate needs for food, clothing, IDs and other practical items. They also assess each individual and work to connect them to services and resources they need or are eligible for. They are working to identify interim and permanent housing options for any interested resident. There are also a few Watsonville-based CBOs delivering services to this encampment, including the Community Action Board, Healing the Streets and Watsonville Works. Westview Presbyterian volunteers have been serving breakfast at the levee 5/days week for the past 5 years, building relationships and earning trust. They will continue to do so until everyone has moved from the site.
32. If this proposal is selected, in advance of receiving funding, what steps will your community take to support the people living in the encampment and swift implementation of this proposal? (1000 character limit)
If this proposal is selected for funding, the CHE team will continue their outreach efforts and will begin advising the residents of the many services that will become available through this project, and particularly the new non-congregate shelter. They will also begin to inform residents of the imminent start of the levee construction project and the need for them to identify alternative places to stay. Any resident who wishes to move to the Recurso de Fuerza will be placed on a list to move there once it opens, which is expected to be within six months of the grant award date. Residents who wish to explore other options for interim or permanent housing can do so immediately with support from CHE.
Table 6: Projected Milestones
Outreach to the
people residing in
the prioritized
encampment site
began / will begin
in month ____.
This proposal will
reach full operating
capacity in month
_____.
The first planned exit
of a person or
household from the
prioritized
encampment will occur
in month______.
The last planned exit of a
person or household from
the prioritized encampment
will occur in month _____.
1 9 1 24
Attachment: Standardized Timeline
Monterey County ERF Timeline Draft 02_23_2023.xlsx
Applicants must use the ERF-2-R Timeline Template available on box.com
CERTIFICATION
Before certifying, applicants are strongly encouraged to review the NOFA.
I certify that all information included in this Application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Name
Roxanne Wilson
Title
Monterey County Homeless Services Director
Email
[email protected]
PLANNING GUIDANCE LETTER
DATE: November 29, 2023
PERMIT: PP2023-6297
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OFA 34-UNIT HOUSING NAVIGATION CENTER CONSISTING OF MODULAR
UNITS, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR DINING AREAS, STORAGE, OFFICE SPACE, FENCING, AND MOBILE SHOWERS, WITHIN A GATED FACILITY ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
ADDRESS: 5 CHERRY COURT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
BACKGROUND
The Westview Presbyterian Church has partnered with Dignity Moves and the Counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz to build a 34-unit housing navigation center at 5 Cherry Court (APN 017-172-31). The subject property is designated Public/Quasi-Public in the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is within the Institutional (N) Zoning District. The N Zoning District allows emergency shelters by right subject to a building permit issued by the Building Division. The project proposes to provide 34 modular units, an indoor and outdoor dining area, storage, office space, fencing, and mobile showers within a gated facility for housing unsheltered occupants of the Pajaro River encampment. This letter serves to inform the applicant of the requirements for the submittal of a building permit application meeting the Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC) standards for emergency shelters.
PLANNING
WMC Chapter 14-43 outlines the development standards for emergency shelters. All emergency shelters established within the City of Watsonville must comply with the following development standards:
1. Lighting. Adequate external lighting shall be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and of intensity compatible with the neighborhood. At the time of building permit submission, a lighting photometric plan shall accompany the construction documents for the emergency shelter project.
2. Vehicle Parking. Off-street vehicle parking shall be provided as follows:
a. Shelter facilities within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an existing bus route or rail station shall provide one (1) space per employee (based on the highest ratio of staffing on site) and one-eighth (1/8) space per adult client.
3. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle racks that allow for the secure storage of bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle racks shall accommodate at least one (1) bicycle storage space for every five (5) adult client beds. All bicycle racks are required to be on-site and located in a secure area that is not visible from the public right-of-way. The site plan must identify the location of the required bicycle parking. Please identify, for the project, how many beds will be provided for the emergency shelter.
4. Intake Areas. If the intake area occurs on-site, an enclosed or screened waiting area, such as provided in a courtyard building configuration, shall be provided between the intake area and the public right-of-way. There shall be no queuing within the public right-of-way. Queuing within any parking lot is allowed only if the parking lot is not visible from the public right-of-way. The construction plans must identify the required intake areas for the emergency shelter project.
5. Shower and Toilet Facilities. Toilets, sinks, and showers shall be provided on-site. The emergency shelter manager shall be responsible for ensuring that all restrooms and shower facilities comply with the City’s building code requirements.
6. Separate Housing for Families with Children. Families with children shall be housed separately from other clients and be provided with separate restrooms and shower facilities.
7. Spacing. An emergency shelter shall not be located within three hundred (300') feet of another parcel or lot with an emergency shelter.
8. Refuse. Emergency shelters shall provide a refuse storage area that is per the requirements of the Public Works Department.
Setbacks and Development Standards WMC § 14-16.801
Minimum Development Standards N Zoning District
Minimum Net Lot Area N/A
Front Setback (feet)1 10
Rear Setback (feet)1,3 10
Side Setback (feet)1,2 5
Side Setback, Street Side (feet)2 5
Maximum Structure Height (feet) T/B
N/A = Not Applicable
T/B= To be determined
1 = Except as required by the California Building Code. 2 = Side and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet adjacent to a residential zoning district. 3 = For parcels adjoining alleys, the rear yard setback adjoining the alley may be reduced to a minimum of 5-feet.
Emergency Shelter Provider WMC § 14-43.030
The agency and/or organization operating the shelter shall comply with the following requirements:
1. Temporary shelter shall be available to residents for no more than six (6) months.
2. Security. The facility shall have City-accepted on-site security during hours of operation. Parking and outdoor facilities shall be designed to provide security for residents, visitors, and employees.
3. Full Supportive Services. Social services offered at an emergency shelter, with full supportive services, including intake, assessment, and individualized case management services for homeless clients, shall be located on-site.
Full supportive social services can be offered to people other than the residents of the shelter. Emergency shelters that provide full supportive services shall allocate sufficient areas to provide the following:
a. Food preparation and dining areas;
b. Laundry facilities, for emergency shelters providing ten (10) or more beds; c. Restrooms and showers;
d. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and/or open space; and e. A private area for providing referral services to assist shelter clients in entering programs aimed at obtaining permanent shelter and income. “Referral services” refers to the initial assessment of a homeless client to identify the areas in which assistance is needed and connect clients with appropriate off-site programs and services depending on their needs.
Maximum Occupancy WMC § 14-43.040
The project is proposing to establish 34 modular units for housing the unsheltered. The number of beds and units for the project must meet the minimum requirements of the Building and Fire codes of California. The plans must be stamped by a California Licensed Architect and a California Licensed Fire Protection Engineer.
Length of Stay WMC § 14-43.050
The maximum term of staying at an emergency shelter is 6 months in a consecutive 12-month period.
Management and Operation Plan WMC § 14-43.060
The applicant or operator of the shelter shall submit a management and operation plan for the emergency shelter accompanying the building permit plans. The management and operational plan shall be reviewed concurrently with the building permit application. The plan shall remain active throughout the life of the facility with any changes subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Chief of Police. The plan shall be based on best practices, and, at a minimum, the plan shall contain provisions addressing the areas outlined below:
1. Eligibility and intake and checkout process;
2. Operator qualifications—with a list of qualifications of the shelter operator to ensure the operator has demonstrated experience and qualifications to operate a safe and secure emergency shelter;
3. City of Watsonville Police Department Coordination Plan—to ensure sufficient beds are available for use by the Watsonville Police Department;
4. Hours of operation;
5. Ratio of staff to clients;
6. Staff training;
7. Ongoing outreach plan to the City of Watsonville homeless population;
8. The City may inspect the facility at any time for compliance with the facility’s operational plan and other applicable laws and standards. The City Council may establish a fee by resolution to cover the administrative cost of review of the required management plan;
9. Security plan—with the emergency shelter operator responsible for ensuring that the approved security plan is implemented at the emergency shelter at all times and staff is fully trained to implement the plan. Security measures shall be sufficient to protect staff, clients, and neighbors;
10. Loitering control—with specific measures regarding off-site controls to deter the congregation of homeless clients in the vicinity of the emergency shelter during hours that homeless clients are not allowed on site;
11. Management of outdoor areas—include a system for daily admittance and discharge procedures and monitoring of waiting areas to prevent disruption to nearby land uses. For noise abatement, organized outdoor activities may only be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
12. Communication plan—the emergency shelter operator shall designate a liaison to coordinate with police, fire, City officials, local businesses, and residents on issues related to the operation of the emergency shelter;
13. Screening of homeless clients for admittance eligibility—with objectives to provide priority to City of Watsonville homeless persons;
14. List of services offered and organizations offering those services along with any referrals to outside assistance agencies—to ensure a full range of supportive services are offered to assist the residents of the shelter;
15. Transportation plan—that addresses bus access, parking lot use, vehicle abandonment, shuttle services, and bicycle usage/storage. The transportation plan shall include details on off-site shuttle pickup locations and times and a plan to minimize the time homeless clients spend waiting at the pickup location to reduce loitering. The selected pickup locations shall take into consideration community impact and safety considerations;
16. Litter control—to provide for the elimination of litter attributable to the emergency shelter and/or homeless clients within the general vicinity of the emergency shelter;
17. Lock-out plan—that addresses how to house on-site clients that arrive at the facility inebriated or otherwise violate shelter rules to keep both the client and the general public safe by not releasing the client back out into the community;
18. Pet shelter plan—that addresses the care and sheltering of pets of homeless clients; and
19. Temporary beds plan during emergency event—identify the number, location, and spacing of temporary beds and other support equipment for adequate building occupancy clearance by the Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official.
Staff Security WMC § 14-43.070
The WMC requires staff and/or security to be on the premises at all times for emergency shelters open 24 hours a day, when shelter guests are present, as detailed and approved in the management and operation plan. A 24 hour contact number shall be provided to the Chief of Police to contact in case of emergency.
Building and Fire Code Compliance
The project proposing to establish a 34 modular unit housing navigation center is subject to meeting the California Building and Fire Codes. Examples of building and fire code requirements are accessibility, ingress and egress, fire sprinklers, and emergency access. Therefore, the project plans must be stamped by a California Licensed Architect and a California Licensed Fire Protection Engineer. For questions relating to the building code requirements, please reach out to Building Official Joseph DeSante at [email protected] or 831-768-3065.
Before submitting a building permit application, ensure the project plans adhere to the standards provided above.
Attached to this letter is a checklist and form to assist the applicant with submitting a building permit application. Staff looks forward to working with the applicant to bring the project to fruition.
Flood Plain Development
The subject property located at 5 Cherry Court is located within the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AH. All development located within the FEMA SFHA Zone requires meeting the Floodplain Management standards found in Title 9 Chapter 2. All development must demonstrate that the new construction is located one foot above the base flood elevation and must be designed by a California Licensed civil engineer or architect. (End of Planning Comments)
The City looks forward to working with you to bring the emergency shelter to fruition. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the development process, you can reach me at 831-768-3078 or [email protected].
Attachments:
1. Commercial Project Checklist
2. Building/Fire Permit Application
3. Construction Waste Management Plan
4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Attachment 5: Page 1 of 2
Attachment 5: Page 2 of 2
P:\FORMS\FORMS.HANDOUTS2018\zoningclearance 2022.doc OFFICIAL CDD FORM:_____________________
Z O N I N G C L E A R A N C E
OCCUPANCY PERMIT APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PERSON CITY OF WATSONVILLE Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville CA 95076
(831) 768-3050 | (831) 728-6154 fax PERMIT NO.:_______________FEE:___________
GENERAL INFORMATION
BUSINESS NAME & DESCRIPTION
BUSINESS ADDRESS PHONE
APPLICANT NAME PHONE
APPLICANT ADDRESS
SITE INFORMATION
PREVIOUS BUSINESS/USE: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ PROPOSED BUSINESS/USE: __________ ____ FLOOR AREA
1 st Floor ___________
_____ Retail Sales Area _____
# of Seats (if applicable) _____
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:
Site Plan, 8.5" X 11", showing all dimensions
between structures, property lines, parking area, etc.
Floor Plan, 8.5" X 11", indicating proposed and
existing rooms, offices, walls, windows, etc.
ARE YOU PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE
BUILDING?
Interior Remodel Yes
No
Exterior Remodel Yes
No
PARKING
Required Off Street Parking: _______ SIGNAGE
Watsonville Municipal Code Section 8-
6.201 references sign permit requirements
for all permanent signs affixed to building
exteriors. A sign application must be
approved prior to placement of signage on a
building. Failure to comply is a violation
and subject to citation.
DECLARATION
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, that I agree to operate the described business in strict compliance with city zoning regulations, and that this application is being submitted with the consent of the property owner. I have no intentions of completing tenant improvements with the startup of this business and acknowledge that this form grants zoning clearance only and does not exempt me from fully complying with all other City requirements including but not limited to Building Permits, Fire Clearance etc.
Date
P:\FORMS\FORMS.HANDOUTS2018\zoningclearance 2022.doc
SITE/FLOOR PLAN
Did you include: Setbacks Square Footage Office Spaces/Walls Windows Parking Any other changes?
P:\FORMS\FORMS.HANDOUTS2018\zoningclearance 2022.doc
STAFF USE ONLY
Upon completion to conform to this application, the proposed business may be issued a business license and is eligible to receive a Certificate of Occupancy Inspection from the Building Division. This business will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Watsonville Municipal Code with no significant environmental effect.
BUILDING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:______________________
DATE:_____________________________
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: ____________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________ NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED BUILDING MODIFICATIONS OR REPAIRS? (Y/N): _______
PREVIOUS OCCUPANCY: _________
PROPOSED OCCUPANCY: _________
IS USE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING? (Y/N): _______
IS THIS A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY? (Y/N): ___________
LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION REQUIRED?
PLANS REQUIRED?
HOLD CLEARANCE FOR C OF O.
FIRE DIVISION
APPROVED BY: ______________________
DATE: _____________________________
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: _______________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________ NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED FIRE OR HAZMAT PERMIT REQUIRED?
FIRE INSPECTION REQUIRED?
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
APPROVED BY:________________________
DATE: ______________________________
COUNTY HEALTH PERMIT REQUIRED? (Y/N): ___
COUNTY HEALTH PERMIT PROVIDED
SOURCE CONTROL
APPROVED BY: _______________________
DATE: ______________________________
CONDITIONS/ COMMENTS: _______________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________ NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED SB 205 COMPLIANCE FORM PROVIDED
SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTION REQUIRED? (Y/N): ___
P:\FORMS\FORMS.HANDOUTS2018\zoningclearance 2022.doc
POLICE DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY: _______________________
DATE: ______________________________
COMMENTS/CONDITIONS: _______________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________________ NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
PERMIT REQUIRED
TRAVELING MERCHANT/SOLICITOR
LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
AMPLIFIED SOUND
CARD ROOM
FORTUNE-TELLING
TOBACCO LICENSE
PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED BY: _______________________
DATE: ______________________________
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS: ______________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________ NEW BUSINESS/LOCATION
NAME CHANGE
OWNERSHIP CHANGE
SIGN PERMIT REQUIRED
OTHER: ________________________
APN: ____________________________
ZONING DISTRICT: ___________________
PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE (Y/N): __________
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 23, 2024
To: Watsonville Community Development Department
From: Sonia M. De La Rosa, Administrative Officer of the County of Monterey (CAO) Subject: Amended Zoning Clearance Application and Resubmittal of Planning Documents for Issuance of Building Permit Application – PP2023-6297
Per written recommendations by the City of Watsonville Community Development Department (“City”) letter dated July 26, 2024, the County of Monterey (“County”) has amended its original Zoning Clearance Application.
The County revised the site schematic design package and associated materials as required for the City’s completion of its zoning clearance review (#PP2023-6297) for issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction of Recurso de Fuerza Village (“Village”). The Village is a 34-bed low-barrier navigation center to be developed by DignityMoves, the Counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz (“SCC”), in partnership with the site property owner, Westview Presbyterian Church (“Church”), collectively referred to as “Village Partners.” The Village will be a service-enriched shelter that helps persons experiencing homelessness connect with resources that lead to permanent housing.
The County has attached the following to be included in the request for an issuance of a building permit for the Village:
(1) amended zoning clearance permit application;
(2) amended site schematic design package;
(3) amended supplemental associated materials;
(4) second permit submission memorandum dated July 11, 2024; (5) City Planning Guidance Letter dated November 29, 2023; and, (6) City Second Response Letter dated July 26, 2024.
The Village’s amended proposed scope of work will consist of 26 single bed units, 2 double units (4 beds) and 2 separated American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) units (4 beds), indoor and outdoor dining areas, office units, an intake area, a check-in unit, wet units for a multi-purpose room with one sink, laundry and hygiene facilities, trash and utility yard areas, a garden, a pet relief area, bike racks, and storage located within a gated and fenced facility with parking and utility/emergency vehicular access, to be built on 3 parcels owned by the Church.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Sonia M. De La Rosa
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
County of Monterey
168 West Alisal St. 3rd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
831 755 5115
[email protected]
The City’s letter dated July 26, 2024, noted the most recently submitted site schematic design plans differed from the zoning clearance application, dated October 24, 2023. The initial request for zoning clearance review included a site design map located on a portion of 5 Cherry Court (Parcel 2); however, the schematic design materials submitted on July 11, 2024, identify 3 parcels requested for use:
Parcel 1: 118 1st Street APN: 017-172-32 (Main Site Location) Parcel 2: 5 Cherry Court APN: 017-172-31
Parcel 3: 120 1st Street APN: 017-172-35
Since the initial submission of the zoning clearance application, Village Partners determined Parcel 2 would not accommodate some of the configuration requirements for permitting compliance. These modifications, per the City’s recommendations, are included in the attached amended zoning clearance application, site schematic design package, and supplemental associated materials, and are described in greater detail below:
Amended Zoning Clearance Application (PP2023-6297) Modifications The County has updated the amended zoning clearance application (PP2023-6297) to comply with the City’s request for detailed descriptions of the proposed use of each parcel identified and additional clarification in the descriptions to demonstrate the project is intended to be an “emergency shelter,” as defined in Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC) Section 14-18.331.
The following table includes the updated fields of the amended zoning clearance application:
TABLE 1
Application
Fields
Original Field Data Amended Field Data
Permit No.: NO DATA PP2023-6297
Business Name
& Description:
Recurso de Fuerza (Housing
Navigation Interim Housing
Program)
Recurso de Fuerza Village (Low Barrier Navigation
Center)
Business
Address:
5 Cherry Court
Watsonville, CA 95076
APN: 017-172-32: 118 1st Street (Main Site)
APN: 017-172-31: 5 Cherry Court
APN: 017-172-35: 120 1st Street
Previous
Business/Use:
church parking lot APN:017-172-32: church parking lot and church building (project site will not impact church site)
APN: 017-172-31: church parking lot
APN: 017-172-35: church parking lot
Application
Fields
Original Field Data Amended Field Data
Proposed
Business/Use:
transitional interim support facility APN: 017-172-32: a Low Barrier Navigation Center1 ,
that provides temporary living facilities while
providing supportive services.
APN: 017-172-31: parking, access to refuse/utility
designated areas, City utilities road access and
emergency vehicle right-of-way (ROW).
APN: 017-172-35: parking and emergency vehicle
ROW.
Floor Area: proposed gross site area = 10,686
square feet (SQFT)
proposed building area =
4,025 SQFT
ADA decking=1,743 SQFT
APN: 017-172-32:
Proposed project site area = 10,870 SQFT
APN: 017-172-31:
Proposed site area = 29,376 SQFT
APN: 017-172-35:
Proposed site area = 4,850 SQFT
Exterior
Remodel
Yes, demo dilapidated carport APN: 017-172-31: No
APN: 017-172-32: Yes, demo dilapidated carport.
APN: 017-172-35: No
Amended Site Schematic Design Package
The County has updated the site schematic design package that tracks the project modifications noted in the amended zoning clearance application. The changes include, but are not limited to, revisions to the title blocks, descriptions, schematics and specifications throughout the design package, including updated site maps extending beyond 1st Street to Highway 129 and more literal renderings for a truer visual of the project proposal and any potential impacts to the highway. If the City determines during the permitting process that California Department of Transportation approval is required, the County will seek approval through the proper channels. 1 California Government Code § 65660 (2020): “(a) “Low Barrier Navigation Center” means a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. “Low Barrier” means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth. (2) Pets. (3) The storage of possessions. (4) Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms. (b) “Use by right” has the meaning defined in subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2. Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code shall not apply to actions taken by a public agency to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by a public agency, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by a public agency, or to provide financial assistance to, or otherwise approve, a Low Barrier Navigation Center constructed or allowed by this section.”
Additionally, if other Church owned parcels will be impacted by the City’s permitting requirements for setbacks and development standards per Watsonville Municipal Code, section 14-16.801, the Church has agreed to establish reciprocal easement agreements for the construction of this project. This is referenced in the recent memo submission dated July 11, 2024.
Amended Supplemental Associated Materials
Included in this submission, the County has added its operational standards for shelter/navigation centers and the Good Neighbor Protocol for incorporation into the Village operations and management plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit an amended zoning clearance application, site schematic design package, and supplemental associated materials for the Village. We hope to hear from you within the next few weeks to learn the next steps in the permitting process. Please contact me if have any questions and/or require additional information during the review process.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY:
Sonia M. De La Rosa
County Administrative Officer
Date: 08/23/2024
County of Monterey 168 West Alisal St. 3rd Floor
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Sonia M. De La Rosa
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MEMORANDUM - AMENDED
Salinas, CA 93901
831 755 5115
[email protected]
Date: September 4, 2024
To: Watsonville Community Development Department
From: Sonia M. De La Rosa, Administrative Officer of the County of Monterey (CAO) Subject: Amended Zoning Clearance Application and Resubmittal of Planning Documents for Issuance of Building Permit PP2023-6297
Per written recommendations by the City of Watsonville Community dated July 26, 2024, the County of Monterey Zoning Clearance Application. completion of its zoning clearance review (#PP2023-6297) for issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction of Recurso de Fuerza Village The Village is a 34-bed low-barrier navigation center to be developed by DignityMoves, the Coun
Village will be a service-enriched shelter that helps persons experiencing homelessness connect with resources that lead to permanent housing.
The County has attached the following to be included in the request for an issuance of a building permit for the Village:
(1) amended zoning clearance permit application;
(2) amended site schematic design package;
(3) amended supplemental associated materials;
(4) second permit submission memorandum dated July 11, 2024; (5) City Planning Guidance Letter dated November 29, 2023; and, (6) City Second Response Letter dated July 26, 2024.
scope of work will consist of 26 single bed units, 2 double units (4 beds) and 2 separated with Disabilities Act (ADA) units (4 beds), indoor and outdoor dining areas, office units, an intake area, a check-in unit, wet units for a multi-purpose room with one sink, laundry and hygiene facilities, trash and utility yard areas, a garden, a pet relief area, bike racks, and storage located within a gated and fenced facility with parking and utility/emergency vehicular access, to be built on 3 parcels owned by the Church.
letter dated July 26, 2024, noted the most recently submitted site schematic design plans differed from the zoning clearance application, dated October 24, 2023. The initial request for zoning clearance review included a site design map located on a portion of 5 Cherry Court (Parcel 2); however, the schematic design materials submitted on July 11, 2024, identify 3 parcels requested for use:
Parcel 1: 118 1st Street APN: 017-172-32 (Main Site Location) Parcel 2: 5 Cherry Court APN: 017-172-31
Parcel 3: 120 1st Street APN: 017-172-35
Since the initial submission of the zoning clearance application, Village Partners determined Parcel 2 would not accommodate some of the configuration requirements for permitting compliance. These modifications, per the design package, and supplemental associated materials, and are described in greater detail below:
Amended Zoning Clearance Application (PP2023-6297) Modifications The County has updated the amended zoning clearance application (PP2023-6297) to comply with the request for detailed descriptions of the proposed use of each parcel identified and additional clarification in the descriptions to demonstrate the project is intended to be a low barrier navigation center that will provide unsheltered individuals living along the Pajaro River with low barrier access to temporary living facilities, housing navigation and supportive services as defined in California Government Code § 65660 (2023). The following table includes the updated fields of the amended zoning clearance application:
TABLE 1
Application
Fields
Original Field Data Amended Field Data
Permit No.: NO DATA PP2023-6297
Business Name
& Description:
Recurso de Fuerza (Housing
Navigation Interim Housing
Program)
Recurso de Fuerza Village (Low Barrier Navigation
Center)
Business
Address:
5 Cherry Court
Watsonville, CA 95076
APN: 017-172-32: 118 1st Street (Main Site)
APN: 017-172-31: 5 Cherry Court
APN: 017-172-35: 120 1st Street
Previous
Business/Use:
church parking lot APN:017-172-32: church parking lot and church building (project site will not impact church site)
APN: 017-172-31: church parking lot
APN: 017-172-35: church parking lot
Application
Fields
Original Field Data Amended Field Data
Proposed
Business/Use:
transitional interim support facility APN: 017-172-32: a Low Barrier Navigation Center1, that provides temporary living facilities while providing supportive services.
APN: 017-172-31: parking, access to refuse/utility
designated areas, City utilities road access and
emergency vehicle right-of-way (ROW).
APN: 017-172-35: parking and emergency vehicle
ROW.
Floor Area: proposed gross site area = 10,686
square feet (SQFT)
proposed building area =
4,025 SQFT
ADA decking=1,743 SQFT
APN: 017-172-32:
Proposed project site area = 10,870 SQFT
APN: 017-172-31:
Proposed site area = 29,376 SQFT
APN: 017-172-35:
Proposed site area = 4,850 SQFT
Exterior
Remodel
Yes, demo dilapidated carport APN: 017-172-31: No
APN: 017-172-32: Yes, demo dilapidated carport.
APN: 017-172-35: No
Amended Site Schematic Design Package
The County has updated the site schematic design package that tracks the project modifications noted in the amended zoning clearance application. The changes include, but are not limited to, revisions to the title blocks, descriptions, schematics and specifications throughout the design package, including updated site maps extending beyond 1st Street to Highway 129 and more literal renderings for a truer visual of the project proposal and any potential impacts to the highway. If the City determines during the permitting process that California Department of Transportation approval is required, the County will seek approval through the proper channels. 1 California Government Code § 65660 (2023) low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to ices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth. (2) Pets. (3) The storage of possessions. (4) Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms. of Section 65583.2. Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code shall not apply to actions taken by a public agency to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by a public agency, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by a public agency, or to provide financial assistance to, or otherwise approve,
Additionally, if other Church owned parcels will be impacted by the permitting requirements for setbacks and development standards per Watsonville Municipal Code, section 14-16.801, the Church has agreed to establish reciprocal easement agreements for the construction of this project. This is referenced in the recent memo submission dated July 11, 2024.
Amended Supplemental Associated Materials
Included in this submission, the County has added its operational standards for shelter/navigation centers and the Good Neighbor Protocol for incorporation into the Village operations and management plan for a low barrier navigation center.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit an amended zoning clearance application, site schematic design package, and supplemental associated materials for the Village. We hope to hear from you within the next few weeks to learn the next steps in the permitting process. Please contact me if have any questions and/or require additional information during the review process.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY:
Sonia M. De La Rosa
County Administrative Officer
Date: 09/04/2024
Community Development Department
“Working with our community to create positive impact through service with heart.” Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-768-3050
[email protected]
www.watsonville.gov
September 20, 2024
Monterey County Administrative Office
168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Santa Cruz County Administrative Office
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Response to Third Submittal for Zoning Clearance #PP2023-6297 Dear Ms. De La Rosa and Mr. Palacios:
Thank you for submitting an amended Zoning Clearance application for the proposed 34-unit low-barrier navigation center located at 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32), 5 Cherry Court (APN: 017-172-31), and 120 1 st Street (APN: 017-172-35). Based on the information provided, the application is complete and the Zoning Clearance has been approved.
During the administrative review, Planning staff received comments and requests for additional information and/or clarification from several City departments that should be addressed in the building permit submittal. Detailed comments are included below.
Comments:
Fire Department
1. As shown on the plans, fire sprinklers are required. When submitting for building permit, show fire sprinklers as deferred submittals (if to be installed on site).
2. The underground serving the fire sprinklers shall be shown on the civil plans with a note added that the underground will be a deferred submittal and shall be submitted by the installing contractor.
3. Building permit plan set shall show the location of fire extinguishers.
4. Building permit plan set shall show the location of smoke detectors.
5. Add fire alarm to the deferred submittals.
Building Department
1. Revise occupancy to include R occupancy within the complex.
2. Clarify/demonstrate allowable openings at setbacks from all property lines and from the individual sleeping units, inclusive of any overhangs or projections.
3. Provide occupant load for the proposed use. Demonstrate how exiting complies based upon the exiting load.
4. Units will need to demonstrate compliance with the referenced listing (IAPMO ER-500).
5. Accessible clearances throughout the complex will need to be shown.
6. The project will need a soils report supporting the foundation details of the project.
7. The scope of the project includes restriping the existing parking lot and providing an accessible path to the public right of way. Demonstrate that there is an adequate number of accessible parking stalls (CBC Section 11B-208.2), that the location of required accessible stalls support both the church use and the emergency shelter use (CBC Section 11B-208.3), that the accessible path to the public right of way is separated from any drive aisles (11B-250) and is clear and unobstructed, such as food truck parking.
Engineering Department
1. Submit FEMA Flood Elevation Certificates for the entire structure based on the Construction Drawings, during pouring of Foundations, and at finished Construction.
2. Sheet C0.2 – Callouts and labels are bolded too much and cannot be read.
3. Sheet C2.1 – The point of connection of the water service to the city water main is using the incorrect Keynote callout.
4. Sheet C2.1 – Fire Sprinklers shall have a dedicated Fire Service Line.
5. Include City Details for the water meter and service, sewer lateral, and backflow preventor on detail sheet. Provide specifications on the backflow preventor to be used.
6. Indicate the Utility Main Sizes on 1st Street and West Riverside Drive.
7. Proposed water meter shall be installed within public road right of way, along Riverside Dr. and not on private property.
8. The proposed sanitary sewer and water service lines shall be separated as required by State and local codes. The proposed sanitary sewer line and the existing water line that are within the parking lot shall also be separated as required by State and local codes.
9. Temporary trash enclosure is acceptable. Trash enclosure dimensions shall comply with City Standard S-602a & S-602b. A roof will be required for the enclosure.
10. Pet waste shall be contained within the pet area. Revise plans to show how pet waste shall be contained within the pet area and address how it will be contained during rainfall events.
11. Show where storm water runoff from the proposed structure and pet relief area will drain.
12. Show the elevations of the BFE and the lowest floor for the structure on all the Side Elevations drawings on the Architectural Sheets.
13. A Caltrans Permit will be required for any work in the Caltrans right of way.
14. A City Encroachment Permit will be required for any new utility connections to City mains.
Community Development Department
“Working with our community to create positive impact through service with heart.” Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-768-3050
[email protected]
www.watsonville.gov
15. Sheet C2.1 – Revise plans to show the proposed electrical service. Per Watsonville Municipal Code Section 7-16, the electrical service shall be installed underground.
16. Sheet C2.1 – Caltrans has a project that proposes improvements to the driveway and sidewalk in front of the project to be constructed in 2024. Revise plans to show proposed improvements and coordinate with Caltrans on these improvements. See attached plan.
17. Sheet C2.1 – Clarify what is to become of the eastern driveway. The current configuration allows traffic accessing the parcel from 1st Street to avoid merging onto Riverside Drive and obstructing traffic while turning onto the property. If the eastern driveway is to be removed, the applicant must work with Caltrans and the City to identify what changes will need to be made at this location to allow for the elimination of the driveway. If the eastern driveway remains, it shall be revised to comply with accessibility standards. Currently the onsite ADA pathway discharges into the driveway and pedestrians leaving the pathway are left standing on the driveway apron. Revise the driveway and/or pathway so the pathway connects to the sidewalk adjacent to the driveway.
As this may require modifying the eastern driveway, applicant may need to revise the plans to meet City and Caltrans accessibility standards.
Police Department
1. “Proposed plan will maintain and update on-site security systems.” Watsonville Police Department recommends that this specifically be called out to be on-site surveillance system so that it is not up for interpretation. The Police Department also recommends that this surveillance system be made available to any officers responding to a call for service or conducting an investigation involving the site.
Planning Department
1. Provide fencing plan showing existing and proposed fencing. Specifically, show proposed fencing separating the proposed development, the new fire turnaround, and the expanded parking lot from Cherry Court and the single-family residence located at 5 Cherry Court (similar to the existing fence in that area). To minimize impacts to adjacent residential area along Cherry Court, all ingress and egress to and from the site should be from 1st Street and Riverside Drive.
2. Provide details and/or description of how the unstriped areas on each side of the new driveway location in the parking lot will be utilized.
3. No landscaping is shown on any plans, but a large amount of landscaping is shown in the renderings. If landscaping is to be provided, submit a landscape plan detailing the landscaping and/or trees that will be provided and any associated irrigation plan. Trees should not block ingress/egress or paths of travel within the proposed development.
We look forward to receiving your building permit application. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Suzi Merriam
Community Development Director
Cc: Tamara Vides, Interim City Manager, City of Watsonville Roxanne Wilson, Homeless Services Director, County of Monterey Robert Ratner, Director of Housing for Health, County of Santa Cruz Sarah Federico, Management Analyst II, Monterey County
Melissa Bartolo, VP Project Management, Dignity Moves
Carlos Nuno Espinosa, County of Santa Cruz
11 248
Attachment 10: Page 1 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 2 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 3 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 4 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 5 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 6 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 7 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 8 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 9 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 10 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 11 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 12 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 13 of 14
Attachment 10: Page 14 of 14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 19, 2024
Chair Ed Acosta
Vice Chair Peter Radin
Planning Commissioners Daniel Dodge, Brando Sencion, Jenni Veitch-Olson, Martha Vega, Lucy Rojas
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Dear Chair Ed Acosta, Vice Chair Peter Radin, and Planning Commissioners Daniel Dodge, Brando Sencion, Jenni Veitch-Olson, Martha Vega, Lucy Rojas:
RE: 118 1st Street – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to express support for the proposed Low Barrier Navigation Center at 118 1st Street (Project) and to provide technical assistance regarding the obligations of the City of Watsonville (City) under state law with respect to the Project.
Background
HCD understands that the County of Monterey (County) submitted a Zoning Clearance Application (PP2023-6297) for the Project on August 23, 2024. On September 20, 2024, the City ministerially approved the Zoning Clearance Application, in accordance with California law regarding By-Right Low Barrier Navigation Centers.1 On October 2, 2024, the City received an appeal (PP2024-7954) of the approval of the Zoning Clearance Application (Appeal).
The City of Watsonville has a clear need for the Project and other similar projects. The 2023 Santa Cruz County Homeless Point-in-Time count found 421 individuals experiencing homelessness in Watsonville, a 15-percent year-over-year increase; 322 of those individuals were unsheltered.2 In 2018, the City adopted a resolution declaring a Homeless Shelter Crisis;3 that resolution remains in effect today. 1 Gov. Code, §§ 65660-65668.
2 City of Watsonville 2023-2031 draft Housing Element, page B-29, available at https://www.watsonville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22500/Draft-Housing-Element-2023- 2031. 3 City of Watsonville Resolution 121-18 (CM), available at https://www.watsonville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12042/Item-4F-Declaration-ofHomeless-Emergency---Resolution-121-18?bidId=.
Chair Ed Acosta, Vice Chair Peter Radin, Planning Commissioners Daniel Dodge, Brando Sencion, Jenni Veitch-Olson, Martha Vega, Lucy Rojas
In June 2023, the State of California provided an $8 million Encampment Resolution Fund grant to help fund the Project. HCD strongly supports the Project as a key step towards addressing the needs of residents experiencing homelessness.
By-Right Low Barrier Navigation Centers
A Low Barrier Navigation Center is defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, serviceenriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. “Low Barrier” refers to best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth. (2) Pets.
(3) The storage of possessions.
(4) Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms.4
A Low Barrier Navigation Center development is a use by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets certain statutory requirements:
(a) It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.
(b) It is linked to a coordinated entry system.
(c) It complies with Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(d) It has a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit destination through the local Homeless Management Information System.5
Watsonville City staff have determined that the Project is a Low Barrier Navigation Center, is located in the Downtown Core zoning district, which is an area zoned for mixed use, and meets the statutory requirements listed above. Therefore, the Project is a use by right.
4 Gov. Code, § 65660, subd. (a).
5 Gov. Code, § 65662.
Chair Ed Acosta, Vice Chair Peter Radin, Planning Commissioners Daniel Dodge, Brando Sencion, Jenni Veitch-Olson, Martha Vega, Lucy Rojas
“Use by right” means that “the local government’s review … may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a ‘project’ for purposes of [the California Environmental Quality Act].”6
Accordingly, the City acted appropriately in approving the Project ministerially.
Furthermore, since the Project qualifies as a use by right, it is questionable whether the City’s Zoning Clearance Application approval can be appealed. Even if the City is permitted to hear an appeal, the statute further requires that “a local jurisdiction shall permit a Low Barrier Navigation Center development” if it meets the statutory requirements (emphasis added).7 For the Planning Commission to do anything other than deny the Appeal would violate this statutory rule.
Conclusion
HCD strongly supports the Project. The Planning Commission must deny the Appeal in order to comply with state law regarding Low Barrier Navigation Centers. HCD will continue to monitor the Project and reminds the City that, pursuant to Gov. Code section 65585, subdivision (j), HCD may notify the Office of the Attorney General if HCD finds that any local government has taken an action in violation of state housing law, including but not limited to By-Right Low Barrier Navigation Center law.
8 If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Stephanie Reyes at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
6 Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (i).
7 Gov. Code, § 65662.
8 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j)(9).
ii
LEAD ME HOME
MONTEREY AND SAN BENITO COUNTY CONTINUUM OF CARE
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR
EMERGENCY SHELTERS
*Edited to accommodate Encampment Resolution Funding Program Requirements. Original approved by the Lead Me Home Continuum of Care.
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW..................................................................................................... 1 A. Background and Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1 B. Programs Covered by These Standards .......................................................................................... 1 C. Guiding Principles for Shelters...................................................................................................... 2 D. State of CA Housing First Principles.............................................................................................. 2
2. SHELTER ACCESS.......................................................................................................................... 3 A. Eligibility Criteria and Screening................................................................................................... 3 B. Admission, Intake, and Readmission Policies................................................................................. 4
3. SERVICES STANDARDS ................................................................................................................ 5 A. Housing-Focused Case Management ............................................................................................. 5 B. Service Linkages...........................................................................................................................8
4. PROGRAM OPERATIONS.............................................................................................................. 9 A. Program Rules...............................................................................................................................9 B. Time Limits and Extensions........................................................................................................... 9 C. Termination/Disenrollment ............................................................................................................ 9 D. Facility Access..............................................................................................................................9 E. Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation........................................................................................ 10 F. Service Animals, Emotional Support Animals, and Pets............................................................... 10 G. Participant Rights & Responsibilities........................................................................................... 11 H. Grievance and Appeal Procedures................................................................................................ 11 I. Participant Involvement and Feedback......................................................................................... 11 J. Reasonable Accommodations...................................................................................................... 12 K. Emergency Preparedness/Natural Disasters.................................................................................. 12 L. Data Collection, Quality Assurance, and Reporting...................................................................... 12 M. Staff Training.............................................................................................................................. 13
5. FACILITIES, HEALTH, AND SAFETY ....................................................................................... 13
v
A. Facility Standards........................................................................................................................ 13 B. Communicable Diseases.............................................................................................................. 15
6. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................... 15
7. RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 16 CoC Program Interim Rule .......................................................................................................... 16
8. Encampment Resolution Funding Addendum ............................................................................... 17 A. Background and Purpose............................................................................................................. 17 B. Fiscal Deadlines.......................................................................................................................... 17 C. Reporting Deadlines.................................................................................................................... 17 D. Eligible Uses............................................................................................................................... 18 E. HMIS.......................................................................................................................................... 19
1 1. INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW
A. Background and Purpose
The Monterey and San Benito County CoC Shelter Standards provide the policy framework for emergency shelter programs located within these two counties. These standards have been developed collaboratively by the primary funders of shelter in the community: the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP), County of Monterey, County of San Benito, City of Salinas and United Way of Monterey County.
The purpose of these standards is to:
• Create a baseline set of funder expectations for shelter program operations • Ensure shelter programs are operating in alignment with known best practices in the field, including Housing First principles and practices.
• Ensure all participants who access emergency shelter have a similar experience, regardless of funding source.
• Provide all local funders of shelter with a common set of standards for the programs they fund.
These general standards serve as minimum requirements for the operation of shelter programs in Monterey and San Benito Counties. The standards outlined in this manual are designed to provide a framework that individual shelter programs can align to. Each individual provider or program will be expected to develop and maintain policies and procedures consistent with this umbrella set of standards.
Some funding sources have specific requirements. The program operator shall ensure that each program complies with all funder requirements. If any funder requirements are not aligned with these standards, the program will ensure compliance with all funding requirements. In those cases where a specific funding regulation does not align with these standards, the program operator will notify CHSP of the situation to discuss possible options and strategies. The program operator will also note the reason(s) for any inconsistencies in their written program documentation.
B. Programs Covered by These Standards
The Lead Me Home CoC Written Standards define “Emergency Shelter” as: facilities providing shelter in a permanent location, for a limited period of time, to individuals and families having neither a home nor the meansto obtain a home or othertemporary lodging. Shelters provide timelimited accommodations in either a congregate or non-congregate setting.
These shelter standards cover emergency shelter programs receiving funding from any of the following sources:
• HUD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• State of California Homelessness Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) • State of California Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) • Community Action Agency/Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) • State of California Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Programs receiving funding from alternative sources may also align to these standards to ensure community-wide continuity in shelter services.
2 Seasonal shelters are activated in inclement weather or cold/wet winter weather. Seasonal shelters may not offer the same level of services as a year-round shelter and may not be able to align to all the standards detailed in this document. Seasonal shelter operators should, however, strive to comply with these operational standards to the maximum extent possible given space and funding constraints.
Transitional housing provides time limited housing but with longer lengths of stay and more intensive services than emergency shelter. Transitional housing programs are not covered by these standards.
C. Guiding Principles for Shelters
The Monterey and San Benito County CoC maintains a strong commitment to prevent and end homelessness for county residents, with the goal of reducing the total population of people experiencing homelessness by 50% by June 2026. The CoC recently adopted a Five-Year Strategic Plan that provides a roadmap for the CoC and its partners to coordinate, align, and focus their efforts to maximize impact on reducing homelessness.
The strategies and policies adopted by Monterey and San Benito County CoC, jurisdictions (Counties and Cities), funders, providers and other key stakeholders are guided by the following principles:
• Embedded with dignity and respect: The homelessness response system’s efforts center the needs of people requesting assistance by delivering individualized, comprehensive, and culturally competent services. Strengths-based, person-centered, trauma-informed, and harm reduction-based approaches are integrated into all aspects of service design and delivery. • Informed by people with lived experience of homelessness: People experiencing homelessness are experts of their personal needs; the homelessness response system honors and elevates their input on service design and delivery. • Housing-focused: The solution to homelessness is housing; all efforts of the homelessness response system work towards the goal of helping people gain and maintain stable, permanent housing situations.
• Data-driven towards results: Strategies and priorities for reducing homelessness will be informed by data to best serve people experiencing homelessness, achieve desired outcomes, and guide strategic investments in programs and services. • Coordinated: The homelessness response system and other systems of care will communicate and partner towards shared goals of improving service linkages and reducing homelessness.
• Equitable and social justice oriented: The homelessness response system acknowledges the barriers to housing and resource connection that disproportionately impact people by race, ethnicity, gender, and other identities. The system adopts intentional policies and programs to reduce these disparities and advance equity in system experiences and outcomes.
D. State of CA Housing First Principles
The State of California has adopted a set of Housing First requirements that apply to programs receiving funding from a range of sources, including HHAP and ERF. Some of these requirements are only applicable to permanent housing programs, but others are applicable to both shelter and housing. Shelter providers are expected to comply with the State of California’s Housing First requirements as applicable to
3 emergency shelter programs. The requirements may be found in the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 8275(b). Additional information on Housing First may be found at the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (CA-ICH) website at: https://bcsh.ca.gov/calich/resources.html
2. SHELTER ACCESS
To ensure consistency with Housing First principles and ensure that people who are unsheltered have streamlined access to available shelter beds, shelter programs should adopt policies for eligibility and screening that impose minimal barriers to access.
A. Eligibility Criteria and Screening
Screening Criteria
Each shelter program in Monterey or San Benito County will establish its own eligibility criteria in compliance with applicable funding sources. Funder-mandated eligibility restrictions are allowed and may include factors such as: maximum income levels, convictions for specific criminal offenses (e.g., sex offender), minimum or maximum age of participants (e.g., must be at least 18, must be 18-24), veteran status and other factors.
Shelter programs shall not adopt additional eligibility or screening criteria beyond what is required by a funding source. In particular, providers shall not impose additional targeting or screening criteria designed to identify whether an individual or household is “suitable” or housing ready,” such as:
• Sobriety or participation in treatment services
• Employability or employment readiness
• Income or ability to pay rent
• “Motivation” or willingness to participate in services • Proof of citizenship/immigration status
Shelter programs will adopt policies and procedures that “screen in” individuals and households with higher barriers to housing, including:
• Adult individuals and families who are unsheltered (living outdoors or in vehicles); • Households with no, low or fixed income;
• Adults with disabilities, including behavioral health issues (mental illness, substance use); • People with limited or no employment history; and
• People with criminal records and/or evictions.
Shelter programs may conduct a service needs assessment as part of the screening and admission process, but only for the purpose of developing a housing-focused case plan with the participant and determining their immediate needs. Service needs or other types of assessments are not to be used to make eligibility and admission decisions. However, shelters may decline to accept a participant if there is a clear safety issue (see below).
4 Safety Screening
Shelters may use their screening procedures to identify individuals who might pose a safety concern to other shelter participants, including, for example, recent history of violent behavior. Criteria for assessing safety concerns must be clear and objective to the maximum extent possible. These instances should be rare and the reason for the refusal to serve a participant must be documented. Shelters may also terminate a client’s participation after enrollment should they receive information that raises concerns about safety.
Compliance with Federal Requirements
Shelter Programs will operate in compliance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Equal Access to Housing Final Rule, ensuring that all individuals have equal access and accommodations to shelter, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or marital status.
Programs must have policies to ensure compliance with Fair Housing rules and implement a set of policies and procedures to provide reasonable accommodations for households with disabilities.
Screening Criteria Relating to Youth and Families
Programs should ensure they are operating in compliance with HUD requirements relating to involuntary separation of families. The CoC and ESG Interim Rules require that the age and gender of a child under age 18 must not be used as a basis for denying any family admission to a project that receives funds through the CoC or ESG program.
Unaccompanied minors may only be served with agreement of a legal guardian or appropriate authorities. Basic Center Programs (BCP) projects serving runaway youth must create a MOU between their programs and child welfare agencies that clarify roles, responsibilities and define the provision of services at the time youth enter shelter. This requirement is in accordance with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
No one under the age of 18 should be allowed to reside in a single-adult shelter. If a household with minors presents for service at a single-adult shelter, shelter staff should refer the family to more appropriate services.
B. Admission, Intake, and Readmission Policies
Admissions
Shelters are required to create policies and procedures for accepting individuals into their shelter programs including procedures for intake and readmission policies. Admission policies must specify the process individuals or families should follow to request access to shelter including how to contact the shelter, times of day when intakes are conducted, and waiting list procedures (if applicable).
Whenever possible programs shall work to divert participants seeking shelter entry by encouraging them to re-connect with family or friends who could temporarily or permanently house them.
5 Shelter Intake Documents
Shelter intake documents should be compliant with funding source requirements and should not impose additional or unnecessary barriers to access. The following are examples of intake documents that may be required.
1. Personal identification; at least one photo ID is preferred.
1. Documentation of Homelessness or At-Risk status per federal guidelines.
2. Income self-declaration.
3. HMIS Intake form.
4. Signed Release of Information (ROI)
5. Signed acknowledgement of receiving program rules or requirements.
6. Signed acknowledgement of receiving any other participant rights and responsibility.
7. Signed acknowledgement of receiving an agency grievance procedure. All participants will be provided a copy of the procedure.
Shelters should adopt policies that allow for maximum flexibility to make exceptions in cases where a participant cannot secure a needed document. Shelters should also do everything possible to minimize the number and length of forms to be completed by participants to ensure the intake process is not creating barriers to access.
Readmission
Shelter providers shall develop written policies regarding the conditions under which participants who have been exited from a program for violations of rules may be re-admitted. Policies may include conditions under which participants may be “banned” either temporarily or permanently. If a shelter program chooses to have policies regarding bans (due to significant safety concerns and/or related to “time out” periods where participants may not access shelter for a certain amount of time after exiting the program), the program will maintain documentation of their “ban” policies, the grievance/appeal process, and documentation of the reason for any bans that occur. All shelter providers should operate low barrier programs and strive to avoid banning participants whenever possible, utilizing techniques and resources such as harm reduction and de-escalation. Bans should be reserved for instances where participants pose safety threats to other program participants and/or staff.
3. SERVICES STANDARDS
A. Housing-Focused Case Management
The primary purpose of shelter is to provide a safe place for participants to stay while they quickly implement a plan to secure housing. To meet this objective, the primary support service intervention offered at shelter programs is housing-focused case management and service linkages.
Shelter case managers will respond to participants’ immediate and short-term service needs, complete an initial housing needs assessment, and develop a housing-focused case plan to secure and sustain housing.
Case managers will work to identify and build upon participants’ strengths. Additionally, case management will provide linkage to appropriate services and supports, including housing retention planning and retention services, as well as continued monitoring and follow-up regarding participant
6 progress and ongoing needs. The goal of the housing-focused case management is to help participants locate and move to a permanent housing situation as quickly as possible and to retain their housing once they leave shelter. Permanent housing includes market housing, senior housing, affordable housing, shared housing situations, moving in with a relative or friend, obtaining housing with a voucher or subsidy, or any housing situation that is not time limited.
Case management is offered to all participants, not only participants who are there for longer stays or participants in certain parts of the shelter program(s).
Shelter providers may establish rules strongly encouraging participants to participate in case management. However, participants should not be discharged from shelter for failure to attend case management meetings. Case managers will engage with and develop a rapport with each participant, using engagement techniques such as motivational interviewing, and offer assistance that is relevant and useful to addressing the goals and needs the participant has identified to reach the goal of re- entering permanent housing as quickly as possible.
While service participation should be voluntary, shelters are not expected to allow participants to stay in shelter indefinitely if they are not participating in case management or housing search activities. If shelter staff have made robust efforts to engage a participant and “meet them where they are,” yet the participant declines to participate, the shelter may provide the participant with an exit date. Shelters should have a written policy laying out their process and criteria for determining whether to terminate participation for a participant on the basis that they not engaging in the process of developing a housing plan or taking steps along a pathway to housing.
Case Manager Responsibilities
Responsibilities of the case manager shall generally include:
• Employ a person-centered, strengths-based approach that tailors case management to each participant/household. Case management is individualized to each participant or household; case managers actively work to identify the unique needs and goals of each participant. • Develop individual housing plan with each participant/household, with participant participation, covering goals related to housing and other needed services. Housing plan templates should limit the number of goals and action steps to be included in a single plan in order to focus attention on housing and related goals. • Assist the participant with exploring potential housing resources, such as shared housing, reunifying with relatives, and identifying friends or relatives who could provide housing options. • Support participants to draw on their existing support networks, and help participants identify people already in their lives who can help with specific things, such as transportation or childcare.
• Implement Housing First principles, focusing on addressing participants’ housing needs and goals.
• Employ harm-reduction and trauma-informed care to tailor services to participants’ needs.
7 • Work collaboratively with any other programs/staff that are providing services to the participant while in the program (e.g., a rapid re-housing program case manager). Shelter case managers will work to ensure a smooth transition and continuity of care with a participant’s new or additional case manager. Ensure collaboration and clear roles and responsibilities on case plan and housing goals.
• Support participants to manage conflict and/or any other problems that may be presented during their shelter stay.
• Provide services that are culturally appropriate and have needed language abilities. Multi-lingual case managers should be available as needed.
• The case manager will support the participant with housing search and assist the participant in obtaining and moving into housing, including helping participants resolve or mitigate tenant screening barriers like rental and utility arrears or multiple evictions, as well as obtain necessary identification or other documents if needed.
• Support participants to access services for which they are eligible and that will help support s successful transition to housing.
• Case managers may offer budgeting assistance when desired by participants.
Case Manager Supervisory Responsibilities
Responsibilities of the Case Manager Supervisor shall generally include:
• Monitor the Case Managers duties and accomplishments throughout their engagements with participants. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that case managers are properly connecting participants to services and resources, tracking information for participant record and HMIS usage, and general compliance with case management responsibilities. • The supervisor should provide support and training opportunities to the Case Managers when needed to ensure strong supportive services for the participants in the shelter program.
Case Loads
Case managers will generally maintain a manageable caseload of households, to the extent this is feasible given funding constraints. Shelters are expected to operate with no more than 20 participants assigned to each case manager (1:20 case manager to client ratio).
Case Manager Training
Case management staff should be provided with initial training and orientation and ongoing training, supervision, and support. Programs will conduct ongoing training, supervision, and quality assurance to ensure consistency and compliance with program policies including housing-focused case management policies, trauma-informed approaches, sexual harassment, harm reduction, de-escalation, and housing first principles. Programs will also ensure that all case management staff maintain updated knowledge of community-based services such as mainstream benefits, employment services, childcare resources, behavioral health services, and other services.
8 All staff will have written job descriptions that include requirements that they focus on activities relating to obtaining housing, while maintaining participant-centered, low barrier, safe programs.
The program shall have a case review process, as well as ongoing staff supervision and training, to help staff problem-solve around housing plans and around participants who are having difficulty following the established housing plan and/or other challenges while residing at the shelter.
B. Service Linkages
The shelter program shall collect, maintain, and update records of available mainstream and community resources for program participants. This includes community resources that can reduce burdens on income to increase resources to pay for housing costs, including employment opportunities, food banks, clothing consignment stores, mainstream benefits (including CalFresh, WIC, Medi-Cal/health coverage, General Assistance, and CalWORKs) low-income utility programs, childcare resources, and others. Additionally, it is recommended that case managers utilize the Smart Referral Software developed and maintained by United Way of Monterey County to increase service connections and facilitate sending referrals to services.
The program will collaborate with providers that provide domestic violence specific services to determine most appropriate housing or shelter plans for participants who are experiencing or have experienced domestic violence, and to connect participants with applicable domestic violence survivor services
Additional Supportive Services & Voluntary Service Participation As a general matter, supportive services in shelter programs are offered and encouraged, however participation is not mandatory. Programs may offer health and behavioral health services, employment and training services, budgeting classes, life skills, parenting classes and other types of support, but participation is not mandatory as a condition of receiving assistance. Programs may set up savings programs in which participants are supported to save some of their income for move-in expenses once they secure housing. However, savings programs cannot be mandatory.
Programs will utilize motivational interviewing and other engagement techniques to encourage participants to participate in supportive services.
Services for Families with Children
In accordance with federal requirements, each family shelter will consider the educational needs of children in households experiencing homelessness to the greatest extent possible and ensure that staff are trained and knowledgeable about these educational needs and rights of children staying in shelter.
If a family with children is not already connected to McKinney Vento services, the shelter staff should connect them to either the Monterey County or San Benito County Office of Education to ensure the family is receiving the services available to them.
9 4. PROGRAM OPERATIONS
A. Program Rules
In keeping with the principles of participant self-determination and to ensure that programs have low barriers to participation, Shelter Programs should establish program rules that foster an environment of trust, are clear and reasonable, and are focused ensuring that all participants have a safe environment in which to live. Program rules should not mandate participation in services as a condition of remaining in the program. Rules should be enforced consistently using a transparent process.
To the extent feasible, shelter providers should involve shelter participants in shelter governance and the development of shelter rules. Rules should be reviewed regularly to ensure they support the overall goal of creating a housing-focused, participant-centered, safe environment.
B. Time Limits and Extensions.
Each shelter will establish its own rules relating to how long participants may stay in the program. The overall focus of shelter services should be to help participants exit to a permanent housing situation as quickly as possible. To the extent shelters have a fixed maximum length of stay, exceptions should be available for participants who are in the process of securing housing to ensure they are able to transition directly from shelter to housing.
C. Termination/Disenrollment
Involuntary exit from shelter should always be a last resort. Program rules and services should be designed to support participants to access the support they need to participate in the shelter program and to exit as rapidly as possible to housing. Shelter leadership and staff should strive as much as possible to avoid discharging participants who struggle to comply with rules or to participate in services, approaching these challenges through a trauma-informed lens. Staff should be trained in traumainformed care, conflict resolution, de-escalation and motivational interviewing to equip them with the tools needed to work with clients who are challenging to engage and support. (See also section on Training)
Programs will maintain written grievance policies and procedures regarding involuntary exits/asked to leave situations. Participants will be made aware of the grievance procedures.
D. Facility Access
Shelter providers shall establish written policies regarding when and how program participants may access the shelter program facility during the course of their stay. In alignment with Housing First principles and practices, programs should maximize the ability of participants to come and go as they choose and not impose curfews or requirements that participants must leave the site during the day.
The written program policies should cover:
• Times of day when program participants may enter and leave the program • Policies regarding any visitors (how many, when they can visit, how long they can stay) • Policies to prevent unauthorized people from entering the facility, to protect the safety of participants and staff – such as by having a 24/7 staffed front desk, locked gate or door with
10 controlled access to ensure only participants are entering the building, or other method for securing access to the site.
E. Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
Shelter programs should affirmatively develop and implement policies to prevent discrimination and create a welcoming environment for people regardless of their gender identity. Policies should cover, at a minimum:
• Access, intake and enrollment – gender identity or sexual orientation is not a reason to deny access to emergency shelter
• Room or bed assignments – Assignment should be made based on the gender that the client identifies with, while also taking into consideration the client’s views with respect to their personal health and safety. Participants should not be isolated based on their gender identity. • Bathrooms – participants should be permitted to use the bathroom that corresponds to the gender they identify with. To the extent feasible, shelters should offer a gender-neutral or unisex bathroom.
• Creating a welcoming environment for people who identify as transgender, including:
o Adopting a formal policy of respect
o Asking participants their preferred pronouns and taking care to not misgender participants
o Using gender neutral terms if the participant’s gender is unknown o Refraining from asking unnecessary questions or making remarks regarding a participant’s gender
o Using inclusive language in program materials (posters, forms, written policies, etc.) o Taking reasonable steps to address participant privacy or safety concerns • Providing training to staff on gender identity and gender expression, appropriate use of language, how to create an inclusive and respectful environment and the requirements of HUD’s Equal Access Rule.
• Providing participants with service connections and linkages to organizations and programs for the LGTBQIA community.
Shelter providers are encouraged to consult: Equal Access for Transgender People - Supporting Inclusive Housing and Shelters when developing operational policies.
F. Service Animals, Emotional Support Animals, and Pets Each shelter will establish a clear written policy regarding pets. All shelters should allow service animals for people with disabilities. Shelters may establish a policy regarding what documentation or verification is required for an animal to be considered a service animal.
Shelters are not required to accept pets (i.e., non-service animals), however, allowing participants to have pets is a key element of lowering barriers to shelter access. Shelter providers are encouraged to adopt policies allowing pets and providing accommodations for pets to the maximum extent possible. If pets are allowed, there must be a clear policy regarding types of pets allowed, and the respective responsibilities for shelter staff and participants for managing pets to ensure safety of all participants.
11 G. Participant Rights & Responsibilities
All shelters shall adopt a policy on participant rights and responsibilities. These policies must be in writing and shared with each participant upon admission. The written policy should be both personcentered and trauma informed, and should affirm:
• The right to be treated with dignity and respect
• The right to privacy within the constraints of a shelter environment • The right to reasonable accommodations
• The right to self-determination in participation in case management and services, including the right to decline to participate in supportive services
• The right to have all records and disclosures maintained according to written standards and rules regarding confidentiality and privacy
• The right to be clearly informed, in understandable and applicable language, about the purposes of services being delivered
• The right to not be discriminated against based on categories including race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, age, disability, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military status, and veteran status.
H. Grievance and Appeal Procedures
Shelter providers must develop a written set of policies and procedures relating to participant appeals including:
• What types of decisions are subject to appeal (e.g., denial of admission, denial of extension of stay, program termination)
• Grounds for appeal
• How to file an appeal
• Process for the shelter will follow to consider the appeal, including timeframe for each step Shelter providers must also develop a written set of policies and procedures relating to the filing of participant grievances to address the participant’s treatment in the shelter program, including how to file a grievance, the process the shelter will follow to investigate, and how grievances will be resolved, and timeframe for each step.
In accordance with requirements of the State of California, shelter providers written policies and procedures should include directions on how to file a facility complaint to the Monterey or San Benito County Department of Housing and Community Development.
Copies of both the appeal and grievance policy should be posted in the shelter and staff should make forms available to participants upon request.
I. Participant Involvement and Feedback
Shelter providers should involve shelter participants in shelter program oversight and evaluation and proactively solicit input and feedback from participants on all aspects of shelter operations. This may take the form of a resident council (either volunteer or elected), regularly scheduled meetings between participant representatives and shelter staff, having a participant sit on the organization’s board of directors, or other means. Shelter providers should also use a range of tools to gather ongoing input
12 from participants, such as through a suggestion box, surveys, focus groups, exit interviews and other approaches. Shelters should analyze participant feedback and use it to assess program quality and performance and adjust as needed.
J. Reasonable Accommodations
Shelter providers must develop reasonable accommodation policies and ensure these policies are regularly and clearly communicated to participants.
A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception or adjustment to a program, service building or dwelling unit that will allow a qualified person with a disability to:
• Participate fully in the program
• Take advantage of a service
• Live in a dwelling
Shelter providers must provide notice to participants of their right to request reasonable accommodations and the process for making a request. A sample reasonable accommodation request form is provided in the Appendices. When a participant makes a reasonable accommodation request, the program must provide the accommodation unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program or would pose an undue financial or administrative burden. Providers must maintain documentation of all reasonable accommodation requests and how they were handled. If an accommodation is denied, a written explanation must be provided to the participant and documented in their program file.
K. Emergency Preparedness/Natural Disasters
Shelter providers will develop policies and procedures for emergency situations to safeguard staff and participant safety and security. Policies and procedures must include plans for the safe evacuation of shelter participants and staff in case of natural disasters and for sheltering-in-place if evacuation is not possible or safe. All staff must be fully trained on emergency procedures.
L. Data Collection, Quality Assurance, and Reporting
All emergency shelter programs must enter participant data into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) managed by the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers, with the exception of shelters operated by victim service agencies. Programs must follow CHSP’s HMIS policies and procedures which are detailed in a separate document. Program staff will enter complete and accurate information into HMIS in a timely manner for all participants. Participant information, including universal data elements and program-specific data elements, will be accurate, complete, and current.
Programs will conduct ongoing training, coaching, and internal review to ensure quality and consistency of services, and adherence to policies and procedures. Providers will conduct ongoing reviews of services and documentation of services (file reviews), and data quality.
Shelter programs will implement systematic processes to review outcomes, operations, procedures, and participant experience. Programs will maintain a continuous quality improvement process including reviewing outcome data, trend data, and data on the performance measures listed above. Programs also collect, review, and utilize ongoing feedback from participants and other stakeholders.
13 All Shelter programs shall complete and submit reports that are required by their funding sources in a timely manner.
M. Staff Training
Emergency shelter programs shall each develop a comprehensive training program and policy for all staff that covers, at a minimum:
• Harm Reduction
• Trauma-Informed Care
• Housing First Principles and Practices
• Motivational Interviewing
• Cultural Humility/Anti Racism
• Non-Violent Crisis Intervention/De-Escalation
• Emergency Procedures
• Domestic Violence and Safety Planning
• CPR
• Mandated Reporting
• Sexual Harassment
• Conflict Resolution
5. FACILITIES, HEALTH, AND SAFETY
This section specifies some high-level policies that programs are expected to comply with, but it is not intended to provide comprehensive policies for operating a shelter facility. Each shelter program shall develop detailed policies relating to facilities management, health and safety.
A. Facility Standards
Shelter providers are responsible for ensuring that physical facilities are maintained in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, including building and fire codes. Shelter providers must ensure the program safe provides a safe living space for participants. The program provider will work to create and maintain an environment where the safety of participants, staff, and volunteers are always prioritized.
Safety Standards and Policies
Shelter Providers are responsible for maintaining and implementing policies and following protocols to ensure shelter program’s participant and staff health and safety. Policies should include, but are not limited to:
• Policies and procedures to adhere to all applicable local, state, and federal safety and health guidelines to address safe food handling, injury and burn prevention, sanitation and hygiene, participant health management, and staff health management.
14 • Training for staff on health and safety measures to effectively promote a desirable, safe environment for all shelter participants. This includes training on emergency situations, deescalation, and crisis prevention. • Training, policies, and protocol to prevent violence, theft, and other incidents that put the safety and well-being of shelter participants and/or staff at risk. Have policies and procedures in place to investigate any potential incident of violence, theft, or other incidents, including a thorough investigation and actions to address the findings.
• Complete appropriate background checks and screening for all staff and any volunteers who have frequent, direct interactions with participants or may have access to participant information.
• Maintain process to thoroughly investigate any alleged incident involving participants. If an incident occurred, identify, and address any staffing, staff training, facility improvement, policy/protocol/procedure, or other changes necessary to address the incident and prevent future incidents.
• Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent, identify and address workplace violence and sexual harassment.
• Train staff and any volunteers who may interact with participants or participant information on participant confidentiality.
• Maintain a disaster response plan and maintain an emergency response resources, such as a fully stocked First Aid Kit and emergency supplies of food and water, are readily available and replaced as necessary. A telephone should be available always, should 911 need to be dialed. • No weapons or illegal substances are permitted on the premises. • Measures and policies to ensure the proper disposal of needles and syringes are in place. • Policies and procedures for natural disasters, fires, and other emergency situations are in place and made known to shelter participants and staff. For example, fire drills should be conducted routinely.
• Shelters have procedures for preventing and controlling bed bug infestations. Bedding should be regularly changed and washed.
• Staff members must be properly immunized and encouraged to receive flu vaccines each season.
• All shelter staff are mandatory reporters of suspected neglect or abuse. Staff members must be trained on and comply with mandatory reporting statutes.
15 Facility Configuration
Shelter programs may have different types of bed configurations, ranging from congregate/dormitory arrangements to private units. Whatever the configuration, the following general standards should be followed:
• Each participant should have his or her own bed.
• Cribs or Pack N Plays must be available for infants and very young children. • Participants should be afforded privacy in their living space to the maximum extent possible given the facility configuration.
• Shelter programs should offer participants some common areas for recreation and socializing to the extent possible given the facility configuration.
• To the extent possible, shelter programs should provide safe common areas for recreation and socializing for young children and school aged children. It is further recommended that there be space for school aged children to be able to work on homework and study. • Participants should have the ability to securely store possessions, and programs will work to maximize the secure storage space available for each participant. Programs may limit the number of possessions participants may bring to the shelter due to storage limitations and to prevent hoarding.
• Participants should have access to laundry facilities. • Whenever possible, shelters should provide gender-neutral or unisex restrooms to make facilities more welcoming for transgender and non-binary participants.
Meals/Food Preparation Facilities
Shelter programs should provide participants with meals or should provide cooking facilities so that participants may prepare their own food. Facilities that prepare meals on-site must comply with all applicable health and safety codes relating to food preparation and handling.
B. Communicable Diseases
Shelter providers are responsible for developing written policies and procedures for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases, in alignment with the recommendations of the CDC, State of California and county public health departments. Policies must cover social distancing, screening and testing, isolation and quarantine, and vaccination.
6. GLOSSARY
Continuum of Care (CoC) Program. The Federal grant program for targeted homeless activities, including Rapid Rehousing, and Permanent Supportive Housing. Administered federally by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and locally by a nonprofit or governmental lead agency and overseen by the Continuum of Care governing body or board. In Monterey and San Benito Counties, the Lead Me Home Leadership Council is the Continuum of Care governing body and the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP) is the lead agency. A Continuum of Care also refers to the overall system of shelter, housing, and services available in a community to assist people experiencing homelessness.
16 Coordinated Entry System (CES). Coordinated Entry is a framework and process that organizes the homelessness response system through a common, population-specific assessment, centralized data system, and prioritization method that directs clients to appropriate resources and allows for data- driven decision-making and performance-based accountability. Coordinated Entry processes are divided into four parts: Access, Assessment, Prioritization, and Referral.
Diversion/Problem Solving. A strategy that prevents or diverts people from homelessness by helping identify immediate safe, indoor housing arrangements outside of the homelessness response system.
Problem solving strategies operate with the goal of providing people with the appropriate level of assistance needed to resolve their homelessness and ensuring that scarce resources, especially more intensive housing supports, can serve households with higher levels of identified need.
Emergency Shelter. A facility providing shelter in a permanent location, for a limited period of time, to individuals and families having neither a home nor the means to obtain a home or other temporary lodging. Shelters provide time-limited accommodations in either a congregate or non-congregate setting.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). A federal funding source for programs serving people experiencing homelessness with a focus on assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness. In Monterey and San Benito Counites, the City of Salinas is the Administrative Entity (AE) for ESG funding.
Family. One or more adults with physical and legal custody of one or more minor children; Housing First. A proven approach, applicable across all elements of systems for ending homelessness, in which people experiencing homelessness are connected to permanent housing swiftly and with few to no treatment preconditions, behavioral contingencies, or other barriers. (USICH, Housing First Checklist, 2016)
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Subsidized rental housing without time limits and with intensive on-site support services to help tenants maintain housing and meet their desired goals. Permanent Supportive Housing is designed to house those individuals with the greatest housing barriers and the highest service needs.
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH). A housing program model that assists individuals and families who are homeless to move quickly into permanent housing, usually to housing in the private market. It does so by offering housing search assistance, time-limited and targeted services, and short-term rental assistance.
Transitional Housing (TH). An interim housing program model that provides persons or households with shared or private housing units for a time-limited period, during which time the person or household receives support services to help with the transition to permanent housing.
7. RESOURCES
• CoC Program Interim Rule
• ESG Program Interim Rule
• HUD Equal Access Rule
17 • HUD Definitions of Homelessness
• National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) - Emergency Shelter Learning Series • Council on Accreditation (COA) - Person-Centered Logic Model
8. Encampment Resolution Funding Addendum
A. Background and Purpose
The California Interagency Council on Homelessness’ (Cal ICH) Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) is focused on ensuring the wellness and safety of people experiencing homelessness in encampments by providing services and supports that address their immediate physical and mental wellness and result in meaningful paths to safe and stable housing. ERF is competitive funding available to cities, counties, and Continuums of Care. Monterey County was awarded an ERF 2R grant in June 2023.
Each community must focus their project on a prioritized encampment site. For Monterey County’s project, the prioritized encampment sites are located along the Pajaro River and Lower Salsipuedes Creek near the City of Watsonville (Santa Cruz County) and unincorporated town of Pajaro (Monterey County). This project is a multi-jurisdictional collaborative that includes both Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, the City of Watsonville, and the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency (PRFMA).
This addendum offers additional context about the requirements of the ERF project. This addendum should be used in tandem with the Monterey and San Benito County Shelter Standards when designing a shelter project.
B. Fiscal Deadlines
Monterey County was awarded an ERF 2R grant in June 2023. “2” refers to this being the second round of funding available through the ERF program. “R” refers to the rolling application process.
For ERF 2R grantees, the following fiscal deadlines apply:
Obligation Deadlines Expenditure Deadlines
100% 6/30/2024 50% 6/30/2024
100% 6/30/2026
“Obligation” means that the grantee (Monterey County) has placed orders, awarded contracts, received services, or entered into similar transactions that require payment using ERF funding (Standard Agreement, Exhibit A, Section 3). For more detail about obligating funds, please see the Cal ICH Grants Obligation Handout.
"Expended" means ERF funds have been fully paid and receipted, and no invoices remain outstanding.
All requirements listed above, including expenditure maximums and expenditure minimums, are required per statute. Cal ICH monitors progress toward these deadlines using data provided on the quarterly reports.
C. Reporting Deadlines
The ERF grantee (Monterey County) is required to submit a quarterly report to Cal ICH. Cal ICH will share templates and instructions for the quarterly report with the grantee. Sub-grantees and partners may be
18 required to submit data regarding expenditures, technical assistance needs, and project status to support this reporting process.
For ERF 2R grantees, the following reporting calendar applies:
Report Period Report Available Report due to Cal ICH
January 1 - March 31 April 1 April 30
April 1 - June 30 July 1 July 31
July 1 - September 30 October 1 October 31
October 1 - December 31 January 1 January 31
D. Eligible Uses
Monterey County’s ERF project received funding for the following eligible use categories: interim sheltering, rapid re-housing, street outreach, and administrative costs. The following personnel and nonpersonnel costs focus on the interim sheltering category, which includes: “interim sheltering, limited to newly developed clinically enhanced congregate shelters, new or existing non-congregate shelters, and operations of existing navigation centers and shelters based on demonstrated need that are well suited for eligible persons.”
Personnel Costs
Entity Cost Category
[Shelter Provider]
Vice President Emergency Housing (0.05 FTE)
Director of Interim Housing (0.1 FTE)
Case Manager (1.5 FTE)
Resident Advocate (9.0 FTE)
Housing Specialist (0.5 FTE)
Program Manager (1.0 FTE)
Clinician (0.15 FTE)
Shift Supervisor (1.5 FTE)
Maintenance Tech Lead (1.0 FTE)
Janitorial Services (1.0 FTE)
Non-Personnel Costs
Entity Cost Category
Monterey County Contingencies
Westview Presbyterian Rent, paving
Housing for Health Partnership HMIS licenses
Dignity Moves Site development (units, design, consultants) Food Provider Meals
Shelter Provider
Facility equipment and supplies
Fire monitoring
Incentives
Internet services
IT equipment
Landscaping
Laundry equipment
Kitchen equipment
Pantry
19 Non-Personnel Costs
Entity Cost Category
Pest control
Pet services
PGE
Property insurance
Radios
Sewage
Shared space furnishings
Staff mileage and travel
Surveillance
Training expenses
Vehicles
Vendors/Contractors
Waste management
Water
Any changes to this budget must be authorized through the change request process. Please contact Sarah Federico at [email protected] to request a budget change.
E. HMIS
For the ERF project, client-level data is collected via the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). For the ERF project, please work with the Continuum of Care to set-up the project in alignment with HUD Data Standards.
1 Good Neighbor Protocol
The purpose of this Good Neighbor protocol is to establish and maintain positive relationships among the shelter/interim housing/navigation center operator, program participants, and the community. Along with shelter program staff, program participants must commit to be good neighbors to the community, respecting the site as well as the surrounding community. This means that everyone works to support in maintaining a clean and safe environment free of litter, loitering, and noise pollution.
Maintaining a Clean Environment
• Shelter program must support efforts in maintaining a clean community, both in and out of the property.
• Participants should pick up after themselves and are encouraged to pick up litter when possible. • All trash and litter should be placed in appropriate garbage receptacles and dumpsters on property. When garbage receptacles are full, participants should notify staff so it can be addressed.
• Vehicles owned by participants should also be kept in good repair when in the community. Nonoperable vehicles should not be stored at or near the program site. • Shopping carts are not allowed on, around, or near the shelter site at any time. • Guests can only smoke in designated smoking areas and must properly dispose of all cigarette butts.
Proper Hygiene & Attire
• Shelter program participant’s personal hygiene must be kept at what staff deem appropriate to maintain a clean and sanitary environment.
• Proper clothing must be worn in common areas and outside of the shelter site at all times to maintain modesty; this includes a top, bottom, and shoes.
Noise
• Courtesy Hours must be observed at all times. This means participants must keep the volume of any radio, TV, stereo, or musical instrument sufficiently reduced at all times to not disturb others.
The use of headphones is highly encouraged.
o Program participants and visitors must also refrain from excessively loud talking or singing at all times.
o Vulgar and obscene language must be kept to a minimum. o These courtesy points should be considered when in the surrounding community as well.
2 o Similarly, noise should be kept to an acceptable level while in vehicles in and around the shelter site.
• Quiet Hours are established between the hours of 9 pm & 8 am. o Quiet hours are periods when noise must be kept to a minimum and must be contained within a program participant’s sleeping unit.
Site Security
• Security cameras will monitor the shelter area and perimeter of the property. • Guests must be approved by the onsite supervisor.
o Any guest threatening the safety of program staff, or the public will be discharged from the program.
o Guests of participants must adhere to applicable areas of this protocol. o Overnight guests are strictly prohibited.
• Loitering, camping, and informal food and clothing distribution around the site will not be allowed.
Community and Coordination with the Neighborhood
• At least once per year, program operators shall distribute a flyer to the surrounding neighborhood that:
o Invites them to an open house where they can receive updates regarding shelter operations and provide a venue for neighbors and businesses to provide feedback. o Offers other means of contact information for neighbor grievances and inquiries.
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Watsonville City Council
275 Main Street, Suite 400
Watsonville, CA 95076
Catalina Torres
121 2nd Street, Apt.# F
Watsonville, California 95076
(831) 706-1429
catram1993@~mail.com
December 16, 2024
Received
Watsonville
City Clerk
Re: Appeal (#PP2024-7954) of Zoning Approval of Homeless Shelter (#PP2023-6297) Located at 5 Cherry Court, 118 First Street and 120 First Street, Watsonville, California
Members of the Council:
A local institution, the Westview Presbyterian Church (Church), operates on three property parcels at 5 Cherry Court, 118 First Street, and 120 First Street in Watsonville, and has done so for a long time. On September 20, 2024, the Watsonville City Zoning Administrator approved a Zoning Clearance and Occupancy Permit Application (#PP2023-6297) (Application) for the establishment of a homeless shelter ( commonly referred to as the "Tiny Village") on the Church parcels.
Due to a number of issues, I, as a resident of Watsonville and a member of a neighborhood coalition, La Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social (Coalition), submitted an Appeal (#PP2024-7954) on October 2, 2024, requesting that the Watsonville Planning Commission (Commission) overrule the Zoning Administrator's decision and rescind the referenced Approval.
On December 3, 2024, the Commission voted to deny the Appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's Approval.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Page2
Appeal Request to the Council.
By the authority of Part 11 of the Watsonville City Zoning Code Title 14, I appeal the action of the Commission. I request the City Council overrule the Commission's decision, uphold the Appeal, and rescind the Zoning Administrator's Approval.
Summary of Appeal, Response, and Rebuttal.
The Appeal identified fifteen (15) defects that occurred in the process by which the Approval was made. These defects included false public statements made by Watsonville City government officials, defective processing of the Application, and, most importantly, a failure to guide the Zoning Permit Applicant to obtain, by necessity, a Special Use Permit for the Church as a predicating step for the entitlement of the project. For the Commission at their December 3, 2024 Meeting, City Staff responded to the Appeal with a Commission Agenda Report (undated) that provided conventional paragraph text as well as itemized summary response.
Staff's response was dismissive and dominated by two repetitive arguments. Staff asserted that the items in the Appeal lacked relevance to an entity referred to as "the entitlement review process." Secondly, Staff asserted that Government Code Section 65662 completely preempts all authority of the Watsonville Zoning Code. Also for the Commission at their December 3, 2024 Meeting, the Coalition responded to the Commission Agenda Report with a rebuttal letter dated December 3, 2024 (Rebuttal), and a folio (Folio) of related information titled "A Collection of Data and Documents Highlighting Watsonville's Improper Zoning Procedure for the Tiny Village," dated December 3, 2024. The Rebuttal established that Staff relied upon vague, superficial reasoning to evade response to the Appeal and defective interpretation of Government Code Section 65662 to ignore the Watsonville Zoning Code.
Following are sections which provide additional detailed response to the Commission Agenda Report and a concluding assessment.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
The Entitlement Review Process.
On pages 9 through 13 of Staff's Commission Agenda Report, Staff presented the enumerated reasons for the Appeal with accompanying Staff Analysis response. As to the reasons for Appeal numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9, Staff asserted those reasons for the Appeal were not related to an entity identified as "the entitlement review process," and because of that, they were not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval.
Staff provided no explanation as to what "the entitlement review process" is to assist in analyzing and responding to Staff's assertion. Due to Staff's repetition and broad dismissal authority claimed, a response to this discrepancy is needed. "The entitlement review process" is not defined in the Watsonville Municipal Code, therefore, it is a vague, ambiguous term. In a general sense, some reasonable assumptions can be made. A zoning clearance approval is a land use "entitlement." A procedure whereby a zoning clearance permit application is analyzed and ultimately denied or approved would be a "review process."
The important issue then is the analysis and decision-making of the Zoning Administrator. In the six referenced reasons for Appeal, information was provided that showed actions by Staff related to the Approval of the zoning entitlement at hand. All of these actions, such as withholding critical information from Council Members, making false statements to Council Members and the public, holding defective neighborhood meetings, withholding public documents from involved attorneys, and refusing to respond to an attorney's related letter, had a damaging effect on what information was received and documented and subsequently utilized by the Zoning Administrator for making a decision.
As a result, it is clear that Staff used the term "the entitlement review process" as an arbitrary and frivolous evasion from responding to the Appeal. A more thorough response to this frivolous evasion by Staff is contained in the Rebuttal document that was submitted to the Commission at the December 3, 2024 Meeting on the Appeal.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Page4
Government Code Section 65662.
On pages 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Staff's Commission Agenda Report, Staff made repetitive reference to Government Code Section 65662 and asserted that Section 65662 designates a low-barrier navigation center (LBNC) as a use "by right" for the Church properties and, by reference to Government Code Section 65583.2(i), local government may not require a conditional use permit for the LBNC. Staff's repetitive reference to Government Code Section 65662 needs response. Section 65662 does indeed preemptively designate an LBNC as a use by right, and it is obvious that the City may not require an LBNC to obtain a conditional use permit. However, it is essential to point out that there is no text or authority in Section 65662 that preempts local zoning authority over any existing conditional uses on the Church parcels. Shown following is an excerpt of the actual text of Government Code Section 65662:
A Low Barrier Navigation Center development is a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, if it meets the requirements of this article. A local jurisdiction shall permit a Low Barrier Navigation Center development provided that it meets the following requirements:
(a) It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.
(b) It is linked to a coordinated entry system, so that staff in the interim facility or staff who co locate in the facility may conduct assessments and provide services to connect people to permanent housing. "Coordinated entry system" means a centralized or coordinated assessment system developed pursuant to Section 576.400(d) or Section 578.7(a)(8), as applicable, of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those sections read on January 1, 2020, and any related requirements, designed to coordinate program participant intake, assessment, and referrals.
(c) It complies with Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
( d) It has a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit destination through the local Homeless
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Management Information System as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(Added by Stats. 2019, Ch.159, Sec. 7. (AB 101) Effective July 31, 2019. Repealed as of January 1, 2027, pursuant to Section 65668.)
Therefore, it is very clear that while the City may not require an LBNC to obtain a conditional use permit, the City has full authority of its local zoning code to regulate any existing conditional uses on the Church parcels.
In the Agenda Package distributed to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2024, there was the text of the Commission Agenda Report, a draft resolution, a letter from the Monterey County Counsel's Office, and a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Throughout all of these documents, the assertion that Government Code Section 65662 preempted all local zoning authority was repeated numerous times.
Letter from Attorney William R. Seligmann.
The zoning clearance review for the shelter has continued over two years. In the process, neighbors of the Church location retained a qualified attorney (William R. Seligmann) for legal advice. Consequently, Mr. Seligmann sent a letter dated July 29, 2024 to the City Council, City Attorney, and the Planning Department to address the legal process for the shelter.
His letter provided legal analysis and assessments regarding the Church, conditional use status, nonconforming uses, and related use permit requirements. He concluded, whereas by state law certain housing proposals are preemptively allowed by right, that law only applies to such housing proposals and does not have any authority to preempt any other local zoning code regulations. He also gave his assessment that the Church was required by the Watsonville Zoning Code to obtain a Special Use Permit before the shelter could be established on the parcels.
Although the City Attorney received Seligmann's letter and indicated a future reply, she never did provide any such future reply. When the Zoning Administrator approved the
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Application without requiring a Special Use Permit for the Church first, the Coalition Appeal was filed, which thoroughly referenced Seligmann's letter. For the Commission Agenda Report, Seligmann's letter was not included, and the Commission Agenda Report provided no acknowledgment or critical review of Seligmann's letter. Even more significant is the fact that nowhere in the Commission Agenda Report is there even any mention of the conditional use status of the Church, the Church's lack of a Special Use Permit, the nonconforming use status of the Church, and the Watsonville nonconforming uses ordinance. It appears that Staff tried to prevent the Commissioners from even thinking about the factors of the Church, let alone critically analyzing them.
The same tactic was utilized by Monterey County and the State Department of Housing and Community Development in their respective letters to the Commission regarding the Appeal.
Seligmann's letter was ultimately provided to the Commission by the self initiative of the neighborhood Coalition via a public comment letter on December 2, 2024, which was only one day before the Commission Meeting. Obviously, the Commissioners did not have an equitable time frame to evaluate Seligmann's analysis relative to the other letter attachments included by Staff in the Commission Agenda Report.
Validity of the Commission Agenda Report.
Based upon the previous sections, the Commission Agenda Report needs to be assessed.
In it, Staff evaded response to the Appeal and blatantly misinterpreted what Government Code Section 65662 preempts locally. In addition, Staff withheld a critical information resource from the Commission and evaded responding to that resource. All of these factors degraded what is supposed to be a fair and equitable information resource. That degradation resulted in a prejudicial context improperly adverse to the Appellant's position. As such, the Commission Agenda Report was a procedural defect that significantly tainted the validity of the Commission's decision.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
December 3, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting.
Leading up to and during the Commission Meeting, certain events took place. In addition, a number of statements and presentations were made by Staff, Commissioners, Appellant, Applicant, and members of the public. Certain statements were significant insofar as they provided information as to the zoning procedure integrity as well as the validity of the Commission's decision. The following section is a presentation of the procedural defects of the Commission and the Meeting, serving as further grounds for petitioning to overturn the Commission's decision.
1. Defective Commission Agenda Report Format.
a. Although the Commission Agenda Report referenced the December 3, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting by text in the Report header, it didn't have a formal document date shown. This is contrary to best document management practices and leads to confusion in future referencing.
2. Staff improperly failed to include the legal analysis by William R. Seligmann in the Agenda Package distributed publicly on Wednesday, November 27, 2024. a. Staff did not provide a copy of Mr. Seligmann's letter in the Commission Agenda Report, nor did they provide engagement and critical review in the Commission Agenda Report to the letter, even though the letter was very much referenced in the Appeal letter. Staff asserted that Government Code Section 65662 preempted all local zoning authority, and because of this, the letter and analysis did not need to be considered by the Commission. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 47:27] " ... the issues raised in the letter were addressed in the Staff Analysis in the Staff Report already, so we didn't feel the need to address it separately."
City Planner Matt Orbach's statement is false. Staff did provide a summary response on page 11 of the Commission Agenda Report. However, Staff only referred to the use permit issue of the LBNC, whereas Seligmann referred to the use permit issue of the Church.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
b. In doing so, the Commission's decision-making authority was hijacked by City Staff for Staff's own interest. Staff's action reveals that they were claiming infallible analysis. By the underlying principles of why Commission meetings are held in the first place, Staff was obligated to provide accurate information and guidance to the Commission in a thorough and equitable manner so that the Planning Commissioners could give consideration to the concerns of the entire community as a basis for their decision-making. Accepting Staff's reasoning would render the continued existence and operation of the Commission unnecessary.
c. An email was sent by Coalition Member Marta Bulaich to the Planning Commissioners on December 2, 2024 (attached herewith), alerting the Commission as to how Staff was weaponizing the procedural process against the community by failing to include Seligmann's letter. Bulaich also included Seligmann's letter, which made it an official public comment to the hearing. d. City Attorney Mary Anne Wagner gave an incoherent rationale as to the exclusion of Seligmann's letter in the Commission Agenda Report. She correctly stated that the letter was not included in the Appeal packet, but then she falsely stated that it was not submitted as a public comment to the hearing. It is notable that Seligmann's letter was heavily referenced in the Appeal letter as a critical legal analysis.
[Transcript: Mary Wagner: 1:29:27] I think those are the points of the letter.
If there's something that I'm missing that you'd like me to address, I'm happy to do it. And just to be abundantly clear, this was not included in the Appeal packet and again, it wasn't submitted as a Public Comment to this hearing, so I don't think it was intentionally withheld from anyone. I appreciate and am glad that you have it tonight. But it, you know, it was not submitted as part of the Appeal. [Emphasis added]
e. Wagner's claim that Staff didn't act intentionally actually contradicted Orbach's relevant comment. Orbach stated that Staff "didn't feel the need to address it separately," which clearly demonstrated intention.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
f. Wagner displayed a number of actions that helped to define the competence of the Commission meeting. She arrived late, and in the discussion on the issue of the letter from William Seligmann, she admitted that she didn't have a copy of the letter and that she wasn't fully aware of what was in it. [Transcript: Mary Wagner: 38:58] Thank you, Commissioners. And first, may I apologize to the Commission and public for being late due to circumstances beyond my control? Thank you for your indulgence on that. [Transcript: Mary Wagner: 1:26:41] With respect to the questions or the issues that were raised in the letter from the attorney, I can't find it. I know that SB 4 was referred to, and that it's not what this project was submitted as. It's not submitted, submitting under that those provisions.
Despite this defective competence, several Commissioners made comments indicating their reliance on her response statements to make their vote decisions.
Reliance on inaccurate guidance by a Staff Member established a defective basis for the Commissioners' decision.
3. Staff improperly failed to provide a functional audiovisual support system during the Planning Commission meeting, which led to statements made by various speakers being inaudible to the public audience as well as inaudible on the uploaded video recording.
a. A transcript of the meeting is attached, documenting numerous instances where the audio was unintelligible, marked by blank lines and/or the term "garbled." This issue was particularly significant during comments made by Commission Secretary Justin Meek.
4. Staff misled the Commission both in the Commission Agenda Report and in their presentation on the timeline of the entitlement review process.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Given that it is well documented that the Zoning Administrator served as both site identifier and streamliner of the process, the review process should have been considered as having been initiated no later than February 14, 2023, when the Monterey County Board of Supervisors was informed by Roxanne Wilson that Watsonville was a Co-Applicant (of the ERF-2 Grant) and Site Identifier. a. Presentation on Unsheltered Homelessness presented by Roxanne Wilson to the Monterey Board of Supervisors on February 14, 2023, revealed Watsonville's role as "Co-applicant, site identification, planning, etc." M
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS
Entity Role
County of Monterey, CAO IGLA-Homeless
Services
County of Santa Cruz, Health & Human
Services - Housing for Health
Coalition of Homeless Services Providers
Pajaro Regional Flood ManagementAgency
(PRFMA)
City ofWatsonville
Lead Applicant, Grant Management
Co-applicant, Santa Cruz County Continuum of
Care, Identify Primary Service Provider and lonGterm sustainable funds Co-applicant, Monterey County Continuum of Care,
Co-Administer Funds
Co-applicant, Clean-up and Restoration
Co-applicant. site identification , planning, etc.
b. Page 529 of the Commission Agenda Package (part of the Folio) included a letter dated August 21, 2023 from Roxanne Wilson to Rene Mendez confirming Watsonville's role as site identifier and streamliner of permitting. The Folio document also included Minutes from 2022 Salvation Army meetings, during which time the Zoning Administrator indicated a recommendation of the Church property for the project [pages 601-605 of the Agenda Package]. c. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 29:04] So the entitlement here is the Administrative Review Permit. It's a ministerial approval, which means it's generally done at a Staff level where an application comes in, its for a "by right" use that should comply otherwise to code, and so Staff verifies that whatever relations applied to it are, in fact, you know, in compliance with the checkboxes
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
and then the permit is issued. And so that process, in this instance, stretched out much longer than it would usually, from October 2023 to September 2024.
5. Staff gave invalid guidance in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation to the Commission on the situation and particulars of the existing Church on the property as a conditional use.
a. In the slide titled, Appeal Process - Use Analysis - Church, Orbach never stated that the Church is a conditional use.
APPEAL PROCESS - USE ANALYSIS - CHURCH
14-20.050 Nonconforming Uses
A nonconforming use may only be increased in size or intensity or modified in location or character through the granting of a special use permit after making findings that such expansion or modification will not adversely affect adjoining properties and those findings required by Section 14-10.607.
Westview Presbyterian Church is a legal nonconforming use that is not being increased in size or intensity or modified in location or character as part of the proposed project, so it may continue in perpetuity.
Nothing in the LBNC application triggers review of the legal nonconforming church use.
6. Staff gave invalid guidance in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation to the Commission on the particulars and applicability of the Watsonville nonconforming uses ordinance.
a. In the same slide referenced in item 5, Orbach provided Watsonville Zoning Code's definition of Nonconforming Uses, but erroneously maintained that the Church was not being changed by the LBNC, so as to trigger review of the nonconforming Church use.
b. The analysis in item 9 of this document demonstrates Orbach's error.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
7. Staff failed to identify in the Commission Agenda Report that the Church was an existing use and would be continuing as a use after the LBNC was to be established. Staff also failed to identify that the Church was a conditional use (as per the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan zoning regulations) and would continue to be a conditional use after the LBNC was established. a. The September 4, 2024 Amended Zoning Clearance Application failed to state that the Church would be continuing its use on the project site with the LBNC.
This omission gave false pretense that there was no zoning compliance issue to be resolved regarding the Church.
8. Staff failed to identify in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation to the Commission that the Church lacked a Special Use Permit. Staff failed to identify the Church as a nonconforming use in the Commission Agenda Report. a. In conjunction with the defect identified in item 7, this has a misleading distortion of presentation, implying that the Church isn't going to be there in the future, and therefore consideration of the use permit requirements of the Church would not be required. This also seems to be similar to the distortions created when Staff withheld Coalition attorney William Seligmann's letter from the Commission Agenda Report and the presentation to the Commission.
9. Staff failed to identify in both the Commission Agenda Report and presentation that establishing the LBNC would change the intensity of the Church's nonconforming use on the parcels such that a Special Use Permit was required to be approved for the Church before the LBNC could be established on the property.
a. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 41:23]: So number 8. Staff improperly failed to guide the applicant to obtain, by necessity, a Special Use Permit for the Church as a PREDICATING step for the entitlement of the project. And the analysis was that the low-barrier navigation center is a use "by right" per Government Code Section 65583.2(i), quote "use by right" means that the local
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
government's review may not require conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a 'project' for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no Special Use Permit may be required by the City as a predicating step in the entitlement of the project.
And so to expand on what I said earlier on nonconforming uses in the slide deck. This is the section of the Watsonville Municipal Code that deals with nonconforming uses. It states that the nonconforming use may only be increased in size or intensity or modified in location or character through the granting of a Special Use Permit after making findings that such expansion or modification will not adversely affect adjoining properties and those findings required by this other conception. So Westview Presbyterian Church, as I mentioned previously, is a legal nonconforming use, meaning that it was established prior to the current zoning that is not being increased in size or intensity or modified in location or character as part of the __ project. So they continue to and nothing in the Government code section regulating low barrier navigation centers, triggers review of the legal nonconforming churches.
This is the establishment of a new use on our property that the Church owns. It is not the Church use that is existing there today expanding. [Transcript: Peter Radin: 43:16] To boil it down to something simple. Is the question a change in the Church use, or a change in the Church property? And I think that that may be where some of the disagreement arises, and I understand that the City's position is that the use has remained the same, hasn't intensified, it hasn't expanded, it has not changed, vis-a-vis the Church. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 43:43] Yes.
b. Orbach's statement is simply wrong. Even by the most basic manner to measure intensity - how much of a use entitlement exists on unit lot area - the Church's use would become more intense with the shelter established.
If the Church stays operational (which still is not clear from the Zoning Clearance Permit Application), its entitled land area will shrink by at least
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
10,000 square feet. It is important to note that the shelter is a separate entitlement from the Church. Land allocated to the shelter entitlement is land that is removed from the Church entitlement. 10,000 square feet is a substantial amount of land area; such magnitude approaches acreage as measurement. It is remarkable that Staff chose to omit discussion of this extraordinary fact from the Commission's consideration.
The Church entitlement (which allows for present and future Church activity) will be operating on significantly less land should the LBNC be established on the parcel. Religious activities can evolve to a substantial degree over a short time frame. At this point, nobody knows how long the shelter will continue operating or what it will evolve to. Staff has not conducted competent urban planning that adequately anticipates and mitigates potential adverse impacts.
The Commission failed to address this substantial and egregious failure of urban planning.
10. Matt Orbach improperly advised the Commission that the Church could obtain a Special Use Permit after the LBNC was established, which is in violation of the City's nonconforming use ordinance.
a. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 44:14] Yes. I will point out, though on along the lines of it being in prerequisites, that even if it were the case that the nonconforming use which use needed to be brought into compliance with the issue of a Special Use Permit, that would not not preclude the approval of a low-barrier navigation center on the site per Government Code. So that, if that were to be found to be an issue, it would be dealt separately from this approval. [Emphasis added]
b. The controlling excerpt of Section 14-20.050 of the Watsonville Zoning Code regarding nonconforming uses is shown below:
A nonconforming use may only be increased in size or intensity or modified in location or character through the granting of a special use permit after making findings ...
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Here it can be seen that the nonconforming Church use may only be changed after a Special Use Permit is granted with required findings.
11. City Attorney Mary Anne Wagner gave incoherent legal guidance on what a legal nonconforming use means.
a. [Transcription: Mary Wagner: 1:27:50) There's, I think, a difference of opinion about what, what a legal, nonconforming use means, and whether or not this project triggers a need for the Church itself to come in for a conditional use permit. [Emphasis added]
The Watsonville Zoning Code does give a special definition as to what a nonconforming use is. Wagner generated confusion by not capably clarifying the issue.
12. Staff misled the Commission by not explaining that the LBNC was also allowed by right in the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan regulations. a. This was detailed by Coalition Member Marta Bulaich during the Appellant presentation:
[Transcript: Marta Bulaich: 1:06:30) There is another serious issue to resolve this matter. Staff says that a low-barrier navigation center is not shown as a use in the Watsonville Zoning Code, and that means that, then that Watsonville has no regulations for low-barrier shelters. Staff then claims that this means that the only regulations that apply are Government Code 65662.
This analysis is wrong. The Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan, which you approved, states that any use not shown in the related Table 6-3 is allowed by right and is regulated by that code. Also, regardless of the low-barrier navigation center issue, the parcels are governed by the rules for Churches, since there is a Church on the property.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
13. Staff incorrectly determined both in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation that the LBNC project met the requirements of Government Code Section 65662 when in fact, the project did not do so.
Staff alleged supportive evidence regarding a services plan to satisfy qualifying requirements of Government Code Section 65662. Referring to a standards manual for emergency shelters as an improvisation for an LBNC does not constitute evidence of a valid services plan. There was no services plan and no supportive evidence in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application that services staffing would be provided by the Community Action Board. Community Action Board has not been formally identified as the services staffing in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application. (Roxanne Wilson's letter of October 2023 states HomeFirst will be the operations provider; it appears based on email correspondence, that Community Action Board was asked to fulfill the role on December 5, 2023). Orbach instructed Radin to ask the Applicant to explain the LBNC responsibilities. Roxanne Wilson also referred to the ERF-2 Grant application for the listing of service providers. a. [Transcript: Peter Radin: 50:46] So this might be an entree to ask the question, if you could explain the relative responsibilities as you understand them - DignityMoves, County of Monterey, Community Action Board. Can you give some color on that?
b. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 51:10] I think that would be a fair question for the Applicant when they get up here. I sort of remember what I read in the in the original grant application. But for an appropriate answer, you should ask the Applicant. [ Emphasis added]
How could Staff possibly have confirmed the LBNC project's compliance with Government Code Section 65662 when they couldn't validate a key requirement: a services plan that identifies the services staffing? Rather than providing substantive evidence, Staff deferred responsibility by instructing the Commission to seek clarification from the Applicant.
c. [Transcript: Roxanne Wilson: 1:12:04] Earlier there was a question about the relationships of all of us. As you can see, we have quite a few people here, so
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
DignityMoves is what is called the development management agency. They are responsible for coordinating all of the teams, the surveyors, the contractors, and they are kind of the central point of the entire group that's working on this project. Community Action Board is replacing HomeFirst. So inside of your packet, I believe you received the application that the County of Monterey has submitted to the State, and we had listed HomeFirst as this service provider, but since then, we have moved to a local service provider with extensive experience in working with Watsonville residents and also working with this population.
14. Staff misled the Commission in both the Commission Agenda Report and the presentation regarding false statements that the Zoning Administrator and her superiors (two City Managers) made to the Council, media, and public. a. At no point did Orbach adequately address the Appellant's concerns regarding Staff's misleading statements to the Council, the public, and the media.
Instead, Orbach consistently deflected from these critical issues. The Appeal meticulously documented Staffs misstatements, with supporting video evidence included in the Folio for reference.
b. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 30:37] I believe, from the wording that was submitted with the application. This reference same actually pertains to the previous City Manager in relation to correspondence with the County of Monterey and County of Santa Cruz, prior to even submitting the application. c. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 39:51] Um, for a little context here, I believe this is referring to public statements made by Interim City Manager Vides at the time about, I think, and there's something lost in translation here. I think what she was trying to say was that we had not received a resubmittal of an application, not that one didn't exist. Because between October 2023 - when we see two or three page initial submittal - and July 11, 2024, there were no official submittals. There were a lot of meetings, and a lot of conversations about project design, what the type of use was, but there was not an official submittal that could be shared that was reliable.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
d. Orbach's statement about the Application was false and mischaracterized the process. Contrary to his claim, the City responded to the October 2023 Zoning Clearance Permit Application with not one but two Planning Guidance letters, both addressing emergency shelter guidelines. This demonstrated that the City treated the October 2023 application as an official submittal. Furthermore, at the time Interim City Manager Vides made her statement in June 2024, the City had still failed to provide Coalition attorney William Seligmann with a copy of the October 24, 2023 Zoning Clearance Permit Application. This omission undermined Orbach's attempt to reframe the timeline, deflected from the Appellant's core concerns, and misled the Commission.
15. Staff improperly referenced in both the Commission Agenda Report and its presentation data from the ERF-2 Grant application to support the Zoning Clearance Permit Application.
There was no direct mention of Community Action Board in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application. Instead, Staff referenced the ERF-2 Grant application, which itself was invalid as a current resource as it had large amounts of deviations and discrepancies because of the protracted iterations of submittals, resubmittals, and prolonged dialogues of the project. At no point in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application was the Community Action Board identified as a provider of services staff.
a. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 50:06] So Staff analysis, Government Code Section 65662(a), only requires that the project have a services plan that identifies services staffing. The application materials identified, identify the Community Action Board as a provider of services staff. So this is one where the government code language is pretty vague. It just says that they have to submit the staffing plan and identify the provider, which they were identified in the grant application.
Orbach's statement was logically flawed. There was no services plan that identified services staffing. An ERF-2 Application does not qualify as a services plan. A "services plan" should provide a detailed description of how supportive services will
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
be provided to residents of an emergency shelter or supportive housing. This includes things like case management, job training, counseling, medical care, or other resident-focused services. Although the Applicant had referenced a number of emergency shelter standards, such reference did not establish that a services plan existed. There was no evidence that the services plan existed, nor was there valid identification of the services and staffing.
16. City Attorney Mary Anne Wagner improperly gave invalid and incompetent guidance to the Commission that the Commission Appeal hearing was not the appropriate forum to air a California Public Records Act concern. a. Contrary to Wagner's statement, the Planning Commission had the legal authority to direct the Planning Staff to provide improperly withheld public documents to an injured party.
b. Contrary to Wagner's statement, the Planning Commission had the legal authority to consider and incorporate the illicit withholding of public documents by Planning Staff in reaching their decision regarding the Appeal. c. [Transcription: Mary Wagner: 38:58] You are correct. This isn't the appropriate forum to air a Public Records Act, um, concern. It is my understanding that all the records that were responsive to requests were provided, but if the person who made the request believes that there are documents that were inappropriately withheld, the Public Records Act itself has a process that can be followed. I don't have the statutory reference for you right now, but it _ likely to report ____ "
d. Wagner failed to acknowledge that William Seligmann submitted a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request on April 27, 2024, prompted by Roxanne Wilson's misleading public statement that groundbreaking for the project would occur in June 2024. Additionally, DignityMoves and Dan Hoffman also publicly corroborated this timing. Critically, the Zoning Clearance Permit Application, which was required to be approved prior to any groundbreaking, was not forthcoming in the document request, yet both Planning Guidance letters (including the one without a FEMA requirement) were provided.
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Additionally, a complete ERF-2 Grant Application, which would have revealed Watsonville's true level of involvement in the project, was illegally excluded from the response.
17. Matt Orbach misled the Commission in both the Commission Agenda Report and presentation about the nature of the Caltrans correspondence, in which his letter specifically referenced a "building permit submission" prior to Zoning Clearance approval.
a. Orbach's response to Vice Chair Radin was illogical and nonresponsive, given Caltrans' letter dated July 24, 2024 was regarding "Westview Presbyterian Church Building Permit Submission." [Page 333 of the Agenda Package] b. [Transcipt: Matt Orbach: 53:25] City Staff reached out via email to Caltrans staff to inform them of the proposed work along State Route 129 and inquire about whether they had questions and concerns that could be addressed during the future building permit process. [Emphasis added]
c. Based on email exchanges (attached herewith) with Monterey County's Sarah Federico and Church Pastor Dan Hoffinan dated June 26, 2024, it is clear that the Applicant was on track to file the Building Permit Application in July 2024.
d. Matt Orbach misrepresented critical facts to the Commission regarding the Caltrans correspondence and the timing of the building permit submission.
Statements in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation contradicted the explicit reference in Caltrans' July 24, 2024, letter to a "Westview Presbyterian Church Building Permit Submission." Furthermore, Orbach's claim that City Staff only engaged Caltrans to address a future building permit process was undermined by the attached email exchanges with Monterey County officials Sarah Federico and Church Pastor Dan Hoffinan.
These emails clearly indicate that the Applicant was actively preparing to file the Building Permit Application in July 2024. This inconsistency highlights a significant procedural defect and a lack of transparency, further invalidating
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
Staff's claims and undermining the integrity of the Commission's decision-making process.
18. Staff erroneously claimed that a qualifying requirement of Government Code Section 65662(a) for the LBNC was met.
a. Section 65662(a) required that the LBNC identifies services staffing. The presented evidence for fulfilling this requirement is invalid. The referenced document, "Lead Me Home Monterey County's Continuum of Care for Emergency Shelters," is a document of standards for emergency shelters and not LBNCs or transitional housing, and the services staffing is not legitimately identified in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application.
19. Staff misled the Commission by stating it could only consider four criteria of Government Code Section 65662 to resolve issues raised in the Appeal. a. [Transcript: Matt Orbach: 20:09] So in this case, the proposed action is actually regulated by Government Code Section 65662, not the Watsonville Municipal Code. So the Planning Commission is limited to consideration of whether the Zoning Administrator erred in the application of the four criteria related to approval of low-barrier navigation centers located in Government Code Section 65662.
b. Orbach stated that the Commission could only consider the four criteria for Commission action. This is false. Coalition Member Marta Bulaich stated:
[Transcript: Marta Bulaich: 1:05:07] Staff asserts numerous times in the Agenda Report that your decision-making is controlled by Government Code Section 65662 related to low-barrier shelters. Staff then asserts that it preempts local authority and that none of the provisions of your City's zoning code apply to the project. The entire structure of your Agenda Report is written with that assumption. Please be aware that Staff's assumption is unreliable and should be challenged. Staff's manipulation on
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
this matter has created assertions that should be rejected. For example, on page 3 of the Agenda Report, Staff states the Commission can only consider issues identified in the Appeal. But then Staff states that this means that the Commission can only consider four criteria of low-barrier shelters that are in Government Code 65662. That is nonsensical. Staff's claim that Government Section 65662 completely preempts your zoning code is simply false. The Commission has properly received the Appeal and has every right to consider the issues in it.
Defect of Staff's analysis became an essential defect of the Commission's decision.
A Planning Commission has an obligation to fully and fairly evaluate the facts presented during an appeal. The Planning Commissioners failed to fulfill that duty by not competently evaluating all of the facts presented during the Appeal process.
20. Failure by the Planning Commissioners to properly evaluate the Rebuttal. a. The Rebuttal provided fifteen responses to Staff's Analysis in the Commission Agenda Report. While the document was submitted over an hour prior to the Planning Commission, the Commission had the discretion, as it did on November 19, 2024, the prior Special Planning Commission Meeting, to request additional time to review the documents. Moreover, the Appellant referenced this document during their presentation to the Commission.
21. Failure by the Planning Commissioners to properly evaluate the Folio. a. The Folio, which included links to video clips, clearly demonstrated Staff's misleading comments to the City Council and the public. While the document was submitted within two hours prior to the Planning Commission, the Commission had the discretion, as it did on November 19,
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
2024, the prior Special Planning Commission Meeting, to request additional time to review the documents. Moreover, the Appellant referenced this document during their presentation to the Commission.
22. Failure of Planning Commissioner and Vice Chair Peter Radin to provide a fair approach toward's Appellant's concerns.
Radin undermined the importance of properly addressing all aspects of the Appeal, signaling a bias toward dismissing Appellant's claims without fully evaluating their validity, violating principles of due process and fair hearing. Radin's statements indicate that he, in fact, did not want to ascertain what really happened in the events, which was a defective consideration of the agenda item. a. [Transcript: Peter Radin: 28:32] And I just think that an easy way to basically dispense with some of this would be to define in the entitlement review process, the extent these fall outside of that, then they are no longer a concern. So because it's asserted that it's part of the entitlement review process, and if we can show the entitlement review process is more telescoped than what I think this implies, then I think it's helpful. [Emphasis added] b. Radin's statement about "the entitlement review process is more telescoped than what I think this implies" showed an intent to move things along faster, reducing the opportunity for a thorough analysis of complex issues.
1. The term "telescoping the process" refers to condensing or accelerating a procedure by skipping, merging, or abbreviating steps that are normally required. In the context of land use or administrative processes, it typically means circumventing or hastening critical steps like approvals, reviews, or public input, potentially in violation of established rules or protocols. This can lead to a lack of transparency, inadequate due diligence, or improper decision-making.
c. [Transcript: Peter Radin: 27:30] We have an unfortunate kind of a "he said, she said," scenario in these cases, because unlike most appeals in the court
Watsonville City Council
December 16, 2024
system, the Appeal here we don't really have a way of certifying the facts, so we have dueling facts."
d. Radin's statement of dueling facts is problematic given that a simple view of the Folio documenting videos would have established, without any doubt, that the Zoning Administrator and her superiors, the City Managers, misled the City Council, the media, and the public. Radin acknowledging "dueling facts" without proposing a method to resolve them points to a lack of rigor in handling factual disputes. The remedy was actually conveniently and readily available. As a quasi-judicial body, the Planning Commission has a duty to evaluate evidence impartially and resolve disputes with clarity, not simply dismiss concerns as a procedural evasion. Contrary to Radin's statement, there was a way of certifying facts. Even though proof was submitted to the Commission in the Folio and raised during the Appellant's presentation, Radin undermined the importance of properly addressing all aspects of the appeal, signaling a bias toward dismissing the Appellant's claims without fully evaluating their validity, violating principles of due process and fair hearing.
Radin's comments suggest a lack of rigor in fact-finding and a predisposition to dismiss concerns rather than address them thoroughly. e. Radin was confused about the Caltrans correspondence, and Orbach provided no insight. Radin subsequently stated, "Another question for Applicant," which he failed to ask the Appellant to gain clarity on an Appeal reason. [Transcript: Peter Radin: 54:24]
f. Radin was confused about the issue of the CPRA, which was directed at the Staff. Orbach directed him to ask the Appellant. Radin did not ask the Appellant. [Transcript: Peter Radin: 34:52]
23. Failure of Planning Commissioner Dan Dodge to critically examine the Appeal process.
a. Commissioner Dodge deferred to Staff for guidance.
Attachment 15: Page 25 of 512
Attachment 15: Page 26 of 512
Attachment 15: Page 27 of 512
Attachment 15: Page 28 of 512
Attachment 15: Page 29 of 512
Attachment 15: Page 30 of 512
Attachment 15: Page 31 of 512
Catalina Torres
121 2nd Street, Apt.# F
Watsonville, California
(831) 706-1429
[email protected]
October 2, 2024
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Watsonville Planning Commission
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Received
Watsonville
City Clerk
Re: Zoning Clearance Occupancy Permit Application PP2023-6297 for 5 Cherry Ct, 118 First Street, and 120 First Street, Watsonville, California Members of the Commission:
I am a resident of Watsonville and a member of a neighborhood coalition, La Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y .Justicia Social. On September 20, 2024, the Watsonville City Zoning Administrator approved a Zoning Clearance and Occupancy Permit Application PP2023-6297 (Application) for the establishment of a homeless shelter on three property pa,rcels at 5 Cherry Court, 1'18 First Street, and 120 First Street in Watsonville, California. The Westview Presbyterian Church (Church) has . used these three parcels for its religious institution for a long time and continues to do so to the present. The homeless shelter project, together with included support services, is commonly referred to as the "Tiny Village."
By the authority of Part 11 of the Watsonville City Zoning Code, Title 14, I appeal such approval. I request that the Planning Commission overrule the Zoning Administrator's decision and rescind the approval.
The referenced approval was defective and improper for the following reasons:
Attachement 1
1 of 14
City of Watsonville
October 2, 2024
Page2
1. City Staff (Staff) improperly withheld critical information from certain City Council Members regarding collaboration by Staff with local county government officials as to siting the project at the Westview Presbyterian Church (Church) location.
2. Staff improperly made false statements to the City Council and the public regarding predicating involvement by Staff with a state grant application for funding the project.
3. Staff improperly accepted the Application. This is because the Application was defective due to significant omission of important information.
4. Staff improperly approved the Application without examining and determining the existing uses and conditions on the project site and surrounding environment.
5. Staff improperly conducted defective informational meetings for adjacent residents and businesses by erratic and incompetent noticing and scheduling.
6. Staff improperly withheld critical public documents from the attorney representing the neighbors in the vicinity of the Church, violating the California Public Records Act(CPRA).
7. Staff improperly made false public statements alleging that the Application did not exist for the project, which led to public misdirection.
8. Staff improperly failed to guide the applicant to obtain, by necessity, a special use permit for the Church as a predicating step for the entitlement of the project.
9. Staff improperly failed to resporid to the legal analysis presented by the neighborhood attorney.
10. _Staff improperly approved the Application without detennining the size, location, capacity, and character of the project that would be used as an emergency shelter as defined and regulated in the Watsonville Zoning Code.
11. Staff improperly failed to require that the applicant specify the entity responsible for managing the emergency shelter and provide the qualifications of said operator.
12. Staff improperly submitted a Building Permit Submission to Caltrans in July of 2024 prior to approving the Zoning Clearance Occupancy Permit Application.
Attachement 1
2 of 14
City of Watsonville
October 2, 2024
13. Staff improperly failed to evaluate the animal policy of the emergency shelter, including the density of domestic animals and/or farm animals that will reside on the Church property. (Chapter 1 of Title 6 ofWatsonville Municipal Code)
14. Staff improperly failed to require an adequate Good Neighbor Policy.
15. Staff improperly failed to consider issues pertaining to the Loaves & Fishes institutional operation at 150 Second Street, Watsonville, CA.
Attachment A to this letter provides supporting details for each of these enumerated reasons.
Catalina Torres
Catalina Torres, Neighborhood Leader
Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social Attachment: [Attachment A: Details of Reasons for Appeal] Attachement 1
3 of 14
ATTACHMENT A October 2, 2024
Details of Reasons for Appeal
Reference: Watsonville Zoning Clearance Occupancy Permit Application PP2023-6297 (Application) for 5 Cherry Court, 118 First Street, and 120 First Street, Watsonville, California
Description of Application
The Application, signed by Reverend Dan Hoffman, a representative of Westview Presbyterian Church, is dated August 23, 2024. Additionally, the Application includes a memo dated August 23, 2024, from Sonia M. De La Rosa, Administrative Officer of the County of Monterey, with the subject: "Amended Zoning Clearance Application and Resubmittal of Planning Documents for Issuance of Building Permit Application - PP2023-6297."
Details
1. Information withheld from certain Council Members.
From as early as October 2022, Watsonville City Staff engaged in covert collaboration with Monterey County to establish the shelter while withholding related policy discussions from at least three City Council members ( and even from City Planner Matt Orbach). This illicit protocol culminated in June of2023 with an orchestrated news media blitz that announced the imminent construction of the shelter. Watsonville Council . Members Jimmy Dutra, Ari Parker, and Casey Clark learned about the Tiny Village from the media in June 2023. Once the news was released, these Council Members were bombarded by emails and calls from their constituents about this significant policy issue before the City Manager had even informed them about what was happening. This clumsy manipulation resulted in the Special Council Meeting being held on June 23, 2023, in which transparent disclosure and equitable consideration was demanded by the marginalized Council Members.
Attachement 1
4 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
Page2
2. False statements made regarding the initiation of project.
During the June 23, 2023 Special City Council Meeting, several Staff members made false statements to the City Council and the Public, including, but not limited to:
A. Former City Manager Rene Mendez denied the City ever reviewed Monterey County's grant application. Mendez also denied the City ever had a role in identifying the site. This was proven to be false by an email dated February 10, 2024, f sent by Director Housing For Health at County of Santa Cruz Robert Ratner to Rene Mendez, Assistant City Manager Tamara Vides, and Community Development Director Suzi Merriam, as well as public statements made by Monterey County Director of Homeless Services Roxanne Wilson.
B. Suzi Merriam maintained that Staff did not have any information on how the Project would be operated or even what would look like, stating she had not seen anything, even though in an email dated June 15, 2023, Merriam wrote to Matt Orbach, stating, "The City was part of the application process- we have been very aware of the project internally."
C. City Attorney Samantha Zutler claimed she did not have a lot of infonnation about the project. Given Suzi Merriam's email to Orbach, this claim is spurious.
3. Defective Application accepted.
Incomplete and misleading information in the Application The Application, signed under the penalty of perjury by the Westview Presbyterian Church representative, Reverend Dan Hoffman, contains false and misleading data. At a minimum, Hoffman failed to include significant information regarding the current uses of the Church, including, but not limited to, the following:
A. 118 First Street:
1. Iglesia De Cristo Camino De Santidad, a separate religious organization renting space in the main Church building;
Attachement 1
5 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
Page3
ii. Community Action Board, a social service non-profit agency renting office space; and
iii. Illicit Automotive Repair Shop operating in the carport behind the Church building.
B. 5 Cherry Ct.
i. A single-family dwelling that had traditionally been used as the Church minister's residence. This dwelling has been converted into a generic rental dwelling since Mr. Ho:ffinan became the pastor of the Church. Prior to the approval of the Downtown Specific Plan in November 2023, this rental use of the dwelling was not a permitted use.
11. Automobile parking from surrounding businesses. (It appears adjacent businesses are leasing parking spaces from the Church due to a shortage of their parking capacity);
m. Community Action Board Parking; and
iv. Iglesia De Cristo Camino De Santidad Parking
C. 120 First Street
1. Automobile parking from surrounding businesses. (It appears adjacent businesses are leasing parking space from the Church due to a shortage of their parking capacity);
ii. Community Action Board Parking; and
iii. Iglesia De Cristo Camino De Santidad Parking
These omissions are significant, as they misrepresent the true use of the Church ·properties, and the Application is factually inaccurate. Given the site's complexity with · thre~ separate, yet interdependent parcels, the City should have conducted a thorough site inspection to verify the Application's claims. The three parcels have several uses in a flood zone, near schools, have multiple access points to State Highway 129, and are in an area with a high rate of homeless-related crime. Moreover, emergency shelters and low-barrier navigation centers (which often provide services to homeless populations with few or no restrictions) are considered highly sensitive land uses. The proposed facility on the nonconforming Church property triggered significant concerns from the community related to safety, noise, parking, traffic, and neighborhood impact. Because of Attachement 1
6 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
Page4
the aforementioned issues and heightened public interest and controversy, a more thorough review process was necessary.
Moreover, it is customary for City Plannmg Departments to conduct site inspection as part of the approval process for a zoning clearance occupancy pennit. Given that Monterey County's Director of Homeless Services Roxanne Wilson declared to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors the City of Watsonville was instrumental in identifying the site, the City had an obligation to the residents of Watsonville, the County of Monterey, and the State of California to actually evaluate it.
In addition, on Page 3 of the August 23, 2024 Memorandum from Sonia De La Rosa (which is a defining part of the Application), there is an information grid that provides details in a row labeled as "Proposed Business/Use." Intersecting with that row is a column labeled "Amended Field Data." That column improperly fails to indicate that the Church and its tenants will continue operating on the lot at 118 First Street in conjunction with the proposed homeless shelter. That column also fails to indicate that the rental dwelling will continue to operate on the lot at 5 Cherry Ct in conjunction with the parking lot operations.
4. Defective assessment of site.
Westview Presbyterian Church's Role as a Bad Neighbor
Staff included Monterey County's "Good Neighbor Policy" in its Slide Presentation during the Council Meeting (which it did not include in its Agenda Packet). However, Staff is well aware that the Church is not a "good neighbor." In fact, the Church is far from that. The Church has not been transparent about (1) homeless-related crime on its properties; (2) the numerous business activities occurring on the Church's properties that Staff has never considered in its role as the "site identifier" and Zoning Administrator for the proposed Tiny Village; and (3) its ongoing violations of the Municipal Code, including b\lt not limited to, allowing homeless tents and encampments on its property and serving food to the homeless on the levee without a proper permit. The Church's cavalier attitude, assuming that its social mission entitles it to ignore the City's Municipal Attachement 1
7 of 14
ATTACFIMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
Code- along with its contributions to adverse impacts on the neighborhood and public facilities- casts serious doubt on its ability to be a "good neighbor." Failure to Disclose Homeless-Related Crime on Its Properties Troubling testimony has come to our attention through documents produced by the City of Watsonville and former Church parishioners, indicating numerous issues related to the Church feeding the homeless on its property. During the local Salvation Army Ad Hoc Facility/Showers Committee Meeting on August 16, 2022, there was alarming language concerning Pastor Hoffinan's actions in feeding the homeless at the Church:
"He met with his management decision makers at length and the outcome was of conce to the safety of the staff and facilities with bringing the navigation services on the adjacent property where they have a school environment. When they have assisted with feeding community members experiencing homelessness, they have prepared meals and served them at the River Street Park and not at their facility. They have had too much vandalism to their historic church when addressing services at that location." [Emphasis added]
Additionally, former parishioners reported that the Church's homeless feeding programs led to numerous issues, including defecation and fires on church property, as well as attempts by homeless individuals to live in the church's crawl spaces.
Ongoing Indifference to Public Areas
Following the aforementioned vandalism, it appears the Church relocated its feeding operations, SonRise Kitchen, from its premises to public property without obtaining the proper permit. According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Watsonville has been in discussions with SonRise Kitchen for over a year, raising concerns about extreme littering after meals ·and vandalism of the chain-link fence at the back of the park. Coincidentally, nearby Mari.novich and Muzzio Parks are often unusable due to homeless individuals littering used syringes and constructing improvised shelters. River Park, with the Church's involvement, has also seen its usability compromised, with children playing in areas cluttered with trash and damage. Improvised siting of indigent/homeless feeding operations in the public domain is very risky. Adverse neighborhood.impacts are very likely despite any humanitarian motives of the service providers. There has been serious and chronic neglect of affected neighborhoods by City officials insofar as equitable consideration and treatment for the neighborhoods around these feeding operations.
Establishing indigent/homeless support operations invariably draws more Attachement 1
8 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
Page6
indigents/homeless to an area and consideration of such impacts is vital for protection of neighborhoods.
Violations of the Municipal Code
On August 5, 2024, KSBW News published a feature in which the Church highlighted homeless camping behind its property. Camping is in direct violation of Municipal Code 5-36.01. This code makes it unlawful for anyone to camp anywhere in the City, whether on public or private property. Yet, the Church chose to ignore the Municipal Code, seemingly considering its social mission management to be above the law.
5. Defective neighborhood meetings.
While City Council members received notice of meetings, many neighbors did not receive notification until after the meetings were conducted. In one instance, Council Member Montesino informed Catalina Torres about a meeting with only 1-day notice, giving the neighborhood no time to prepare to attend. Lastly, City Staff improperly noticed people for the Community Meeting in the summer at Marinovich Park. Many residents have noticed how City Staff has used defective and erratic notices for District 1 neighborhood meetings. There has been a neighborhood reaction to this condition. When the City scheduled the meeting at Marinovich Par~, residents took the initiative to contact other people themselves rather than rely on Staff's procedures. That remedial action resulted in significantly more attendance by affected residents at the event. This demonstrated how Staff works to suppress and ultimately ignore public participation and engagement on critical neighborhood issues, particularly with underrepresented communities.
6. Public documents withheld from neighborhood attorney.
Under two specific California Public Records Act (CPRA) document requests (24-125 and 24-238), City Staff failed to provide relevant documents under the CPRA, including, but not limited to, a complete copy of the ERF-2 Grant Application, which includes former City Manager Rene Mendez' Letter of Support; a complete copy of the October 22, 2023 Zoning Clearance Application (including referenced memos); and a complete Attachement 1
9 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
copy of the August 23, 2024 Amended Zoning Application (including the Application Profile and any referenced memos).
7. False statements made regarding existence of the Application.
During multiple City Council Meetings during the summer, City Manager Tamara Vides maintained the City did not have an application, even though an application was submitted by Dan Hoffman on October 24, 2023.
8. Failure to require Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 14-20.050 of the Watsonville Zoning Code, the Church, a nonconforming use, requires a special use permit to be approved for the Church in order to accommodate the shelter project, given the radical change being proposed for the property. Staff never guided the applicant to obtain approval of that use permit. Instead, Staff went ahead and approved the Application in violation of the City's own Zoning Code.
9. Failed to respond to neighborhood attorney.
As detailed in William R. Seligmann's letter dated July 29, 2024, the Application fails to comply with key provisions ofWatsonville's Municipal Zoning Code, which have been repeatedly ignored in the approval process.
"Watsonville adopted the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan ("DWSP"). Under DWSP, the church properties were placed in the Downtown Core zone.
Interestingly, neither emergency shelters nor transitional housing are specifically listed as a permitted use in the Downtown Core zone of the DWSP; and while dwelling units are generically listed as permitted uses, churches continue to require a Special Use Permit. (Table 6-3.) In the present case, the existing church does not currently possess a Special Use Permit. As such, the church is Attachement 1
10 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
either an illegal use or a nonconforming use. In either case, the church must now obtain the necessary Special Use Permit."[Emphasis added] The Zoning Administrator erred in approving the Application without requiring a use permit for the Church, given the radical change of use of the Church property. A valid use permit is a mandatory requirement for this type of change of operation on the property, and the failure to obtain one renders the approval legally invalid.
Additionally, the City Attorney acted in bad faith when she failed to respond to William Seligmann. Seligmann's letter clearly established that a Special Use Permit (SUP) was required for this project under local zoning laws, regardless of state law.
Seligmann referenced SB 4, as the City made reference to this law in one of the few documents that the City produced under the California Public Records Act. On August 11, 2024, City Attorney Samathan Zutler wrote to Seligmann, stating:
"Thanks Bill. The City can better respond to your letter, which includes arguments we have also considered, when we have a complete application from the applicant that correctly identifies the project site." Despite the City having a complete Application submitted on August 23, 2024, the City made absolutely no effort to contact Seligmann. Zutler's statement acknowledged the relevance of Seligmann's concerns and assured a· follow-up upon receipt of a complete application. The application was submitted on August 23, 2024, yet no further communication or clarification was provided to Seligmann reg~ding the SUP requirement. Staff's failure to respond to Seligmann's letter created an impediment and constraint on public transparency and engagement of the zoning review.
10. Failure to analyze emergency shelter use.
Watsonville Zoning Code Section 14-18.331 defines what an emergency shelter is.
Chapter 14-43 of the Watsonville Zoning Code provides the special regulations for such emergency shelters. Before Staff could have competently analyzed the project, it would have needed to obtain an accurate assessment of the particulars of the proposal pertaining to the emergency shelter component prior to approving the Application. Staff didn't do that.
Attachement 1
11 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
11. Failure to specify shelter operator information.
The applicant's failure to specify the entity responsible for managing the emergency shelter is a critical and unacceptable omission. This lack of clarity regarding the project's operation and oversight poses significant risks to the shelter's effectiveness, safety, and compliance with local standards. Proper management of emergency shelters is a fundamental requirement to ensure they operate responsibly and serve the community in accordance with legal and regulatory expectations.
The failure to disclose how the shelter will function and who will be responsible for its management introduces substantial concerns regarding safety, oversight, and operational integrity. Furthermore, the misinformation provided in the Application, coupled with the lack of transparency, exacerbates potential risks, including public safety concerns, none of which were adequately addressed during the approval process. This is especially concerning since the ERF-2 Grants specified a qualified operator, HomeFirst. Even Robert Ratner's email of February 10, 2023 confirmed HomeFirst as the operator.
Although the Community Action Board (CAB) has been publicly referenced by Suzi Merriam and Roxanne Wilson as the shelter's operational manager, CAB is not specified in the Application itself. Moreover, under the Watsonville Municipal Code, CAB lacks the requisite qualifications to manage an emergency shelter. further calling into question the viability and legality of the applicant's proposed operations.
12. Improper submittal to Caltrans.
On July 24, 2024, Caltrans Transportation Planner/Local Development Review Coordinator Jacob Hernandez responded to Principal Planner Matt Orbach's letter regarding a Building Permit Submission for the Tiny Village. This unorthodox process involved engaging the State before the Zoning Administrator had approved a complete and valid application. By bypassing standard local review procedures, this sequence undermines the proper order of approvals and potentially circumvents critical oversight at the local level. This undermined local control and due process, leading to legal or Attachement 1
12 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
procedural complications and even triggered an environmental review (CEQA) for the Church.
13. Failed to analyze animal policy.
Monterey County's ERF-2 Application stated that animals will be permitted for residents of the Tiny Village. However, in a subsequent letter, Monterey County Administrative Officer Sonia De La Rosa specified that only service animals will be allowed without clarifying which types of animals (e.g., dogs, miniature horses, etc.) are permitted, the allowed number of animals per resident, or the plans for maintaining enclosures and addressing animal husbandry needs, if applicable. Staff failed to demonstrate how the applicant will comply with these Municipal Code provisions.
14. Failed to provide adequate Good Neighbor Policy.
The Good Neighbor Policy, as currently written, falls short of functional standards for public safety, environmental health, and community impact mitigation. This Good Neighbor Policy relies too heavily on voluntary compliance from shelter residents, with no clear mechanisms for enforcement or accountability. For example, California's public nuisance laws and zoning codes require well-de:fmed systems for handling complaints and ensuring compliance, which this policy lacks. Without specific penalties or methods to enforce cleanliness, noise control, and loitering prevention, the policy does not offer meaningful protection to the community.
Additionally, the policy's failure to address public safety concerns more comprehensively further demonstrates its inadequacy. There is a failure to require the shelter to take proactive steps in coordinating with law enforcement, ensuring noise limits, and preventing loitering or criminal behavior near the site. This policy's vague references to "courtesy hours" and behavioral guidelines fall short of the robust public safety measures typically expected, leaving neighbors vulnerable to potential disturbances without sufficient recourse. The policy must include stronger enforcement mechanisms and specific strategies for mitigating the shelter's impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff did not structure the Good Neighbor Policy to achieve proper functionality.
Attachement 1
13 of 14
ATTACHMENT A
Details of Reasons for Appeal
October 2, 2024
15. Failure to consider issues pertaining to Loaves & Fishes.
The proposed homeless shelter's reliance on Loaves & Fishes services will exacerbate the existing problems in the neighborhood. Loaves & Fishes has already proven to be an entrenched source of urban blight. This is not surprising given that Loaves & Fishes operates with an illicit use permit granted by the City in violation of its own Zoning Code. With the City's discarding of basic public safeguards that a Zoning Code is supposed to provide, Loaves & Fishes attracts an undue concentration of indigent/homeless individuals (and the related adverse impacts) to a crowded residential area. The shelter's use of this institution's services will further increase foot traffic, loitering, and other disruptive behaviors in a neighborhood already struggling with safety and sanitation concerns.
Additionally, Loaves & Fishes is already in violation of its Conditional Use Permit, with current operations exceeding the capacity of its undersized lot and negatively impacting the surrounding community. The increased activity from the shelter's residents utilizing these services will only compound the problem. This will likely lead to more violations of the permit, further strain on local resources, and even greater degradation of the neighborhood. Expanding the reach of an already problematic institution without proper oversight or mitigation strategies in place will invite larger, more difficult-to-manage problems for both the community and the City at large. Staff did not account for the structural neighborhood problems with Loaves & Fishes in their approval of the Application.
· In reality, Loaves & Fishes should not be expanding its activity in the neighborhood. It shou}d reduce its activity or, even better, relocate to a conforming compatible site.
Attachement 1
14 of 14
Gmail
Received
/\,'atsonville ·, 1~1erk _, ly V
Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Agenda Item 4.a of December 3, 2024 Watsonville Planning Commission Meeting Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], Catalina Torres <[email protected]> Bee: Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Members of the Commission,
Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 8:48 AM
At the December 3, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, you will be considering an agenda item regarding an appeal of the zoning decision related to the homeless shelter proposed at the Westview Presbyterian Church site in Watsonville.
One issue in the subject matter pertains to existing conditional uses at the project site, and an attorney, William Seligmann, representing the Appellant, submitted a letter dated July 29, 2024 to the City Staff, which gave legal analysis that concluded that the Church was required to obtain a Special Use Permit to accommodate the homeless shelter before such shelter could be entitled.
City Staff did not include Mr. Seligman n's letter in your related agenda package, even though it is referenced in the appeal request and is a critical resource in considering the agenda item. It is notable that neither City Staff, nor Monterey legal counsel's office, nor the State Department of Housing and Community Development ever acknowledged the existence of Mr. Seligman n's letter, nor did they provide a response to it in your agenda materials.
To respond to Staff's procedural defect, I am providing you with a copy of Mr. Seligmann's letter as an attachment to this communication.
Respectfully,
Marta Bulaich
Attachment:
July 29, 2024 Letter from William Seligmann to the City Council Marta J Bulaich
+1 415 816 1665
@martahari
~ William Seligmann Letter Tiny Homes Project (072924).pdf 159K
Attachment 2
1 of 4
Watsonville City Council
275 Main St., Suite 400 (4th Floor)
Watsonville, CA 95076
[email protected]
LAW OFFICES
William R. Seligmann
333 Church Street, Suite A
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Telephone: (831) 423-8383
Fax: (831) 438-0104
July 29, 2024
Mailing Address:
PO Box481
Santa Cruz, California 95061
Silicon Valley Office:
(408) 356-1950
Re: Tiny Home Application - 118 & 120 First Street, 5 Cherry Court Honorable Mayor Quiroz-Carter and Members of the City Council:
My firm has been retained to represent the interests of a neighborhood coalition of residents, businesses, and property owners affected by the current application to construct a transitional housing and navigation center (identified as Tiny Village) for currently homeless persons on the properties occupied by the Westview Presbyterian Church. While my clients recognize the need to afford housing opportunities to those less fortunate members of the community, they feel that certain neighborhoods in the City have become a dumping ground for the homeless, which has led to a disproportionate incidence of anti-social behavior, including public vandalism, breaking and entering, arson, trespassing, stalking, loitering, and public drug use.
My clients have asked me specifically to address the legal process for the proposed project. In this regard, there are two aspects that need to be addressed; (1) the inapplicability of Senate Bill 4 of 2023; and (2) the necessity for a Special Use Permit for the change in the church operations.
Senate Bill 4:
Senate Bill 4, also known as the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023, adopted California Government Code section 65913.16. This section allows for housing development projects on property owned by religious institutions when certain stringent requirements are met. Among these requirements, the property cannot be located within 1,200 feet of a site that is that is subject to permitting by an Air Resources District. (Cal. Gov. Code 65913.16(b)(4), (c)(6)(B).) In the instant case, the church property is located with 1,200 feet of eleven (11) such heavy industrial sites according to the website of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. Consequently, the provisions of Senate Bill 4 do not apply.
Attachment 2
2 of 4
21 Page
Change in the Use of the Church Property Requires a Special Use Permit:
Given that Senate Bill 4 is inapplicable, the proposed project must comply with all of the applicable provisions of Watsonville's local land use regulations. Based on an application submitted to Watsonville on October 24, 2023, the proposed project consists of approximately 34 modular units to be operated in conjunction with navigation facility for currently unhoused persons and their animals.
It is my understanding that at the time that the application was submitted, the properties were zoned Institutional (N). While emergency shelters are a principally permitted use in the Institutional zoning district, transitional housing is specifically prohibited, and churches require a Special Use Permit (Watsonville Municipal Code ("WMC") § 14-16.802(a)(2), (e)(3), (5).) The current application specifically requests transitional housing, and does not meet the definition of "emergency housing," which is defined as " [h]ousing with minimal supportive services." (WMC § 14-16.803(e)(3)(i).) The current application proposes a navigation center staffed 24 hours a day, which is far from minimal services. Consequently, the proposed project would not be allowed under the Institutional zoning.
On November 23, 2023, Watsonville adopted the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan ("DWSP"). Under DWSP, the church properties were placed in the in the Downtown Core zone.
Interestingly, neither emergency shelters nor transitional housing are specifically listed as a permitted use in the Downtown Core zone of the DWSP; and while dwelling units are generically listed as permitted uses, churches continue to require a Special Use Permit. (Table 6-3.) In the present case, the existing church does not currently possess a Special Use Permit. As such, the church is either an illegal use or a nonconforming use. In either case, the church must now obtain the necessary Special Use Permit.
The pending project will drastically change the character and intensity of the current use of the properties. Instead of simply providing religious services, the church properties now will also offer transitional housing and navigation services to a currently unhoused population in addition to the current religious services. Pursuant to Watsonville Municipal Code section 14-20.050, "[a] nonconforming use may only be increased in . .. intensity or modified in . .. character through the granting of a special use permit." This radical change in use will thus require a Special Use Permit, which will undoubtedly entail consideration of modifications of the church structure to address its location in a flood plain, as well as obtaining approvals from CalTrans for expanded ingress and egress onto Highway 129. Similarly, sufficient church parking will need to be maintained to satisfy the Municipal Code (See WMC § 14-17.1 l0l(g).) The Housing Accountability Act ("HAA'' - California Government Code section 65598.5) does not relieve the City from following the Special Use Permit process. While HAA limits the criteria that can be used to deny a housing development project, it neither dictates the review procedure nor prohibits the imposition of reasonable conditions. Likewise, it does not apply to assembly uses, such as churches. Consequently, the proposed project cannot be approved simply through the Zoning Clearance process.
Attachment 2
3 of 4
31 Page
I hope that this information is helpful to your consideration of this project; and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. cc: email only:
City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Executive Presbyter
Sincerely,
William R. Seligmann
William R. Seligmann
Attachment 2
4 of 4
Gmail Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Public Comment: Agenda Item 4.a of December 3, 2024 Watsonville Planning Commission Meeting
Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], Catalina Torres <[email protected]> Bee: Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Members of the Commission,
Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 4:52 PM
In the Agenda report for the referenced agenda item being considered by the Commission, there was a section titled "Appeal," which presented the reasons for the Appeal in an itemized manner, followed individually by a Staff Analysis response.
Review of the material indicates serious defective analysis by Staff that necessitates a follow-up rebuttal. Attached to this letter is a folio titled "Rebuttal Document to Staff's Analysis in the December 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Package," which contains an itemized array of the reasons for the Appeal (together with related Staff Analysis), followed individually by the accompanying Appellant's rebuttals to Staff Analysis.
These rebuttals are submitted to demonstrate that the Administrative Review Permit #2023-6297 approval was invalid and should be overruled as requested in the Appeal.
Respectfully,
Marta Bulaich, Member
Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social Marta J Bulaich
+1 415 816 1665
@martahari
~ FINAL 202412 03 REBUTTAL DOCUMENT (1).pdf
143K
Attachment 3
1 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
1. City Staff (Staff) improperly withheld critical information from certain City Council Members regarding collaboration by Staff with local county government officials as to siting the project at the Westview Presbyterian Church (Church) location.
Staff Analysis: This comment is not related to the entitlement review process and does not identify any actions erroneously taken by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this is not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval of ARP #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that the withholding of critical information is unrelated to the entitlement process and does not provide grounds for overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval is incorrect. Integrity of the entitlement review process depends on transparency, completeness, and adherence to procedural requirements. Withholding critical information from City Council Members undermines these principles.
Staff activity is sustained by public funds for benefit of the community.
Council Members rely upon Staff to provide timely information on impending events to begin education and orientation for themselves and their constituents to enable functional public involvement so that urban planning adequately addresses public concerns. Staff's use of public funds in order to cripple the Council Members adversely prejudiced the entitlement review process.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked essential transparency, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the ARP #2023-6297 approval (Approval).
Attachment 3
2 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
2. Staff improperly made false statements to the City Council and the public regarding predicating involvement by Staff with a state grant application for funding the project.
Staff Analysis: This comment is not related to the entitlement review process and does not identify any actions erroneously taken by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this is not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval of ARP #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that the false public statements by Staff are unrelated to the entitlement review is incorrect. False statements can impact the evaluation of the project's feasibility, funding sources and compliance with local, state, and federal requirements. These issues are central to the entitlement review process.
Staff activity is sustained by public funds for benefit of the community.
Council Members and the public rely upon Staff to provide true statements regarding Staff involvement with grant applications which are to fund the project. True statements from Staff enable Council Members and the public to adequately assess the grant's purpose and the related priorities of the public as well as the legitimacy of the grant particulars.
Accurate disclosure of Staff's involvement with pursuit of controversial grant funding empowers the public and the Council Members to monitor and address impending and ongoing conflicts of interest and illicit self-serving motivation.
The entitlement process is a public process that requires transparency and accountability. False statements by Staff undermine public trust in the city's governance, which includes the entitlement review process.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked essential transparency, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
3 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
3. Staff improperly accepted the Application. This is because the Application was defective due to significant omission of important information.
Staff Analysis: City staff is required to accept entitlement applications, which are then reviewed for completeness. The project went through several rounds of review and received several 'incomplete letters' before the application was deemed complete and the project application was approved. This is common practice for entitlement applications, which are generally incomplete or require plan changes to comply with development standards and other regulations at the beginning of the review process.
Rebuttal: Staff's response is a narrative of how the project application was handled and a declaration that such actions are common with them. This recital of how Staff is content with how they do things does not rebut the Appeal Reason 3.
The Appeal Letter gave details of the defects of the information provided in the application and those defects still exist. Some elaboration is warranted. It is common for applications to be incomplete, but only to a certain degree. It is also common for applications to undergo iterations in the review process.
However, when the errors and omissions are significant, then the process becomes dysfunctional with critical details being overlooked and improper prejudice being fostered. Integrity of the review process becomes compromised. Staff should have required the applicant to re-submit the application until the significant errors and omissions were adequately corrected before processing it further.
Ever worse is the inequitable impact on the affected public that results from acceptance of significantly defective applications. Staff first accepted (in covert manner) the application in October of 2023 with outrageous omissions and defects and maintained the defects for eight months. Staff only started to remedy the defects after massive public controversy erupted once the extent of the fraudulent application processing was exposed.
Attachment 3
4 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a disorderly and inequitable application process that led to an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
5 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
4. Staff improperly approved the Application without examining and determining the existing uses and conditions on the project site and surrounding environment.
Staff Analysis: The project site is zoned Downtown Core, which is an area zoned for mixed-use. Therefore, the provisions of Government Code § 65662 apply. Government Code § 65662 does not include any requirements related to the project site or surrounding environment.
Rebuttal: Staff asserts that Government Code Section (Sec. 65662) applies to the project site and that Sec. 65662 does not include any requirements required related to the project site or surrounding environment. Staff's assertion is superficial and nonresponsive.
Using a qualifier, if it is assumed that Staff meant to say that Sec. 65662 exempts analysis and consideration of existing uses and conditions of the site and surrounding environment, then Staff's assertion is incorrect.
Sec. 65662 outlines provisions related to supportive housing projects; however, it does not exempt the city from its obligation to consider existing uses and conditions, particularly when existing uses are conditional.
The Zoning Administrator failed to examine and determine the existing uses and conditions on the project site and surrounding environment, which led to an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
6 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
5. Staff improperly conducted defective informational meetings for adjacent residents and businesses by erratic and incompetent noticing and scheduling.
Staff Analysis: This comment is not related to the entitlement review process and does not identify any actions erroneously taken by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this is not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval of ARP #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that defective informational meetings are not related to the entitlement review process is incorrect.
Informational meetings are a vital source of public input that informs the Zoning Administrator's decision. Improperly noticed and scheduled meetings deny affected parties the opportunity to voice concerns or provide relevant information leading to a decision that does not fully account for the project impacts.
It should be noted that at numerous times, various government officials enthusiastically made public declarations that informational meetings were held that addressed neighborhood concerns. The use by reference to defective meetings in order to promote public acceptance and approval of the project is adversely prejudicial to the public interest.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked equitable public engagement resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
7 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
6. Staff improperly withheld critical public documents from the attorney representing the neighbors in the vicinity of the Church, violating the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
Staff Analysis: This comment is not related to the entitlement review process and does not identify any actions erroneously taken by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this is not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval of ARP #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that withholding public documents from the attorney representing the neighbors in the vicinity of the church is not part of the entitlement review process is incorrect.
Withholding public documents prevents stakeholders, journalists, attorneys and public members from adequately reviewing and addressing the project impacts.
The California Public Records Act (CPRA) ensures public access to information that allows for meaningful participation in governmental decision-making.
Such action compromises public trust and legitimacy of the Zoning Administration decision. Procedural fairness, including compliance with the CPRA is a foundational requirement for land use decisions.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked proper disclosure of public documents, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
8 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
7. Staff improperly made false public statements alleging that the Application did not exist for the project, which led to public misdirection.
Staff Analysis: This comment is not related to the entitlement review process and does not identify any actions erroneously taken by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this is not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval of ARP #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that the false public statements made by Staff are not related to the entitlement process is incorrect. The entitlement review process depends on transparency and accountability. False statements create confusion and obstruct meaningful public participation.
This misdirects neighbors and public members and compromises their ability to provide informed feedback on the project.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked essential transparency, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
9 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
8. Staff improperly failed to guide the applicant to obtain, by necessity, a special use permit for the Church as a predicating step for the entitlement of the project.
Staff Analysis: The LBNC is a 'use by right.' Per Government Code § 65583.2(i), "use by right" means that that the local government's review may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a 'project' for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no special use permit may be required by the City as a predicating step for entitlement of the project.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that no special use permit (SUP) may be required as a predicating step for the project is incorrect. It is agreed that the LBNC is a "use by right" as per Government Code Section 65583.2(i).
However, that code section only applies to the project itself and not to any conditional use on the site, such as the church. As a conditional use that lacks a use permit, the church is a nonconforming use. By authority of Watsonville Zoning Code Section 14-20.050, the Church is required to obtain an SUP when a change is being proposed to the existing characteristics of the church use on the property. Establishing an LBNC on the property would change such characteristics. As a result, the church is required to get an SUP before the LBNC can be entitled on the property.
Because the Zoning Administrator approved the LBNC entitlement without first requiring the church to get an SUP, the Zoning Administrator acted erroneously in violating the Watsonville Zoning Code, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
10 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
9. Staff improperly failed to respond to the legal analysis presented by the neighborhood attorney.
Staff Analysis: This comment is not related to the entitlement review process and does not identify any actions erroneously taken by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this is not grounds for modifying or overruling the Zoning Administrator's approval of ARP #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion that Staff's failure to respond to the legal analysis presented by the neighborhood attorney is not related to the entitlement review process is incorrect. During the entitlement review process, stakeholders, including attorneys representing affected parties, have the right to present legal arguments addressing compliance with laws and regulations. Staff is obligated to consider and respond to these arguments to ensure all relevant issues are addressed. Ignoring a legal analysis denies stakeholders their procedural right to meaningful participation.
Ignoring a legal analysis is not consistent with the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency. California land use laws require that public agencies engage with legal issues raised during the review process.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked essential engagement and response, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling Approval.
Attachment 3
11 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
10. Staff improperly approved the Application without determining the size, location, capacity, and character of the project that would be used as an emergency shelter as defined and regulated in the Watsonville Zoning Code.
Staff Analysis: The LBNC is not regulated under the Watsonville Zoning Code because it is not an emergency shelter. The requirements of Government Code§ 65662 do not allow consideration of the size, location, capacity, or character of LBNCs. However, the size, location, capacity, and character of the project were clearly stated in the ARP application materials and reviewed by City staff prior to project approval.
Rebuttal: Staff's response states that the LBNC is not an emergency shelter and, thus, not regulated by the Watsonville Zoning Code. The accuracy of Staff's response is unclear. Staff presents no evidence of even trying to determine if this claim is true. Staff claims that Government Code Section 65662 does not allow consideration of some details of an LBNC. Staff's evasion under the Government Code is overly broad. While Section 65662 limits certain discretionary review, it does not prevent Staff from ensuring that the project is well-defined and designed in alignment with local planning standards. At a minimum, the Commission should require further inquiry and investigation into this issue before perfecting the entitlement.
Attachment 3
12 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
11. Staff improperly failed to require that the applicant specify the entity responsible for managing the emergency shelter and provide the qualifications of said operator.
Staff Analysis: Government Code § 65662(a) only requires that the project have a services plan that identifies services staffing. The application materials identified the Community Action Board (CAB) as the provider of services staffing.
Rebuttal: Staff asserts that Government Code Section 65662(a) only requires that the project have a services plan that identifies services staffing and that the Community Action Board (CAB) was identified as the provider of services staffing. Staff's assertion is non-responsive and consequently incorrect. Government Code § 65662{a) does not exempt the city from ensuring that the identified operator is qualified to manage the project effectively.
Moreover, CAB is not identified in the Zoning Clearance Application but merely in the ERF-2 Grant, and this is not a valid identification of the operator.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it relied on incomplete and omitted information resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
13 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
12. Staff improperly submitted a Building Permit Submission to Caltrans in July of 2024 prior to approving the Zoning Clearance Occupancy Permit Application.
Staff Analysis: As part of the application review, City staff reached out via email to Caltrans staff to inform them of the proposed work along CA-129 and inquire about whether they had any questions or concerns that could be addressed during the future building permit process because the project frontage is in the Caltrans right of way. Consultation with regional agencies is a normal part of the development review process.
Rebuttal: Staff's reply is that they communicated with Caltrans to inform them of proposed work along CA-129 and to respond to questions and that such communication is normal. Staff's reply is non-responsive and consequently incorrect. In reality, the evidence indicates that Staff provided Caltrans with a building permit submission related to the project before the Zoning Clearance process was complete. By engaging Caltrans in a manner that suggests the building permit is underway before zoning is secure gives the appearance that the project approval is a foregone conclusion which undermines the integrity of the entitlement process.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it was based on a procedurally flawed process that lacked procedural integrity, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
14 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
13. Staff improperly failed to evaluate the animal policy of the emergency shelter, including the density of domestic animals and/or farm animals that will reside on the Church property. (Chapter 1 of Title 6 of Watsonville Municipal Code)
Staff Analysis: The animal policy of the emergency shelter cannot be considered under the review requirements in Government Code § 65662.
Rebuttal: Staff's reply is that the animal policy of the emergency shelter cannot be considered under the review requirements of Government Code Section 65662. Here, Staff now admits that the project is an emergency shelter whether in whole or in part. Certainly the emergency shelter component is subject to evaluation of the referenced municipal animal policies.
However, even if one assumes that Government Code Section 65662 is applicable to part of the shelter, Staff's assertion is still incorrect.
Government Code Section 65662 does not exempt the city from enforcing their operational code pertaining to animals.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it failed to evaluate the animal policy of the emergency shelter, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
15 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
14. Staff improperly failed to require an adequate Good Neighbor Policy.
Staff Analysis: A good neighbor policy is not one of the review requirements in Government Code § 65662. However, the project is required to comply with the County of Monterey Homeless Services Good Neighbor Protocol, which was submitted as part of the ARP application documentation.
Rebuttal: Staff's reply is that a good neighbor policy is not one of the review requirements of Government Code Section 65662.
From this Staff concedes that they made no review for adequacy of the good neighbor policy, and they offer justification for the procedural defect by citing Government Code Section 65662. Staff's reasoning is invalid.
Government Code Section 65662 does not prohibit consideration of adequate good neighbor policies.
As declared in the previous items of the Appeal, the extensive defects in sincere and competent engagement with the affected public regarding the likely adverse impact from the project would have presented a serious hurdle for Staff to conduct a proper review. However, the fact is that Staff didn't even bother to try and dismissed such initiative by means of evasion behind an inapplicable state law.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it did not require an adequate good neighbor policy, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
16 of 17
REBUTTAL DOCUMENT TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS IN THE
DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKAGE
15. Staff improperly failed to consider issues pertaining to the Loaves & Fishes institutional operation at 150 Second Street, Watsonville, CA.
Staff Analysis: The Loaves & Fishes institutional operation at 150 Second Street is not a part of the project and cannot be considered under the review requirements in Government Code § 65662.
Rebuttal: Staff's assertion is that Loaves & Fishes is not part of the project and cannot be considered under the review requirements in Government Code § 65662 is incorrect. Loaves & Fishes is an illicit nearby nuisance use in the neighborhood that is a likely interactive entity with the project.
As such, the operation and contextual impacts and interactions need to be considered to ensure the compatibility of the project. In addition, Government Code § 65662 does not preclude the consideration of nearby uses and their potential impact on the project.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is invalid as it did not consider issues pertaining to the Loaves & Fishes operation, resulting in an erroneous decision, which is grounds for overruling the Approval.
Attachment 3
17 of 17
Gmail
Received
Watsonville
City Clerk
Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Public Comment: Agenda Item 4.a of December 3, 2024 Watsonville Planning Commission Meeting
Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Bee: Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Members of the Commission,
Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:58 PM
I am attaching a document titled "A Collection of Data and Documents Highlighting Watsonville's Improper Zoning Procedure for the Tiny Village." Given its size, I'm providing both a Google Drive link and a Dropbox link. Please feel free to contact me if you have any issues accessing the document.
Respectfully,
Marta Bulaich
Ii FINAL 2024 12 03 Tiny Village_ Collection of Oat.. .
Marta J. Bulaich
+1 415 816 1665
@martahari
Attachment 4
1 of 177
A Collection of Data and
Documents Highlighting
Watsonville's Improper
Zoning Procedure for
the Tiny Village
Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para
Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social
· · Marta Bulaich, Member
December 3, 2024
Attachment 4
2 of 177
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 3
11. Homelessness Issue 4
111. Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP) 5
IV. Highlights of the Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective 9 Procedures
• Watsonville's conflicted role to identify the site and streamline the permitting procedure
• Council Members were kept in the dark
• Matt Orbach acknowledged the review process was siloed • Suzi Merriam falsely stated her knowledge of the project • City Manager Tamara Vides falsely stated to the Council that the City has not received an application
V. Homeless-related crime in District 1 in the past two weeks 17 VI. Historical documents relevant to the Zoning Administrator's 21 improper procedure
VII Omissions in the December 3, 2024 Agenda Package 402 2 Attachment 4
3 of 177
Introduction
This presentation chronicles over two years during which the City of Watsonville has demonstrated its intent to implement illegitimate zoning changes regarding the proposed Tiny Village Project on the site of the Westview Presbyterian Church (the "Church") at 118 First Street.
The Church, a nonconforming use in the Downtown Core District, plans to retain its function as a place of worship while adding a low-barrier navigation center (LBNC) to its parcel. The proposed LBNC includes 34 units.
Based on publicly available documents, City of Watsonville Staff withheld information from select Council Members, misled the public, omitted critical documents from the Agenda Package for the December 3, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, and approved the addition of an LBNC on the Church's parcel, despite the Church lacking the required entitlement for this use. According to the Watsonville Municipal Code, the Church needs a special use permit to add this new use. 3 Attachment 4
4 of 177
Homelessness Issues
We can see that there are a lot of homeless people. Most people would like to help. City and County Officials claim that this project will help. So ... what's the problem? The homeless problem is complicated. Simple solutions don't work. Adverse impacts from bad projects are severe and impossible to cure once large sums of public funds are spent. This project had several issues.
1. No public noticing.
2. No public hearing.
3. Secret decisions made by City and County Government Officials.
4. Extravagant waste of public money.
5. Cramming related problems in one neighborhood.
6. Irrational rehabilitation plan for the homeless.
7. Existing indigent support services already adversely affecting the neighborhood.
8. False and misleading statements made at public hearings by officials.
9. The City government seems to be making many mistakes with land use issues recently resulting in lawsuits.
10. Lack of proper care and caution.
The Church Property is a Complicated Situation
1. Three separate, yet interdependent, parcels
2. Unknown easements
3. Unknown land contracts
4. There are no existing conditional uses on the parcels
5. No current use permits are in existence
6. No use permits are being required by the City for the combined church and shelter project
4 Attachment 4
5 of 177
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP)
Land Use Regulations require churches to get
a Special Use Permit (SUP)
Section 6.4
LAND USE REGULATIONS
A. Use
Standards
This section indudes la nd use
prov isions for all properties w ithin
the pla n a rea. Uses not listed in Ta ble
6-3 shall lle allowed lly right unless
pr ohi.bi ted elsewhe re in Lhe \IVMC. Fo r
exa mple, relail a nd restaura nts a re
allowed by right throughout the pla n
area; therefore, they are not included
in Table 6- 3. Defi nitions of the u ses
in Table 6-3 are in Section 6.4.B.
All uses are subject to all applicable
development sta nda rds, State law, and
a ny other appl icab1e req uirements 1ha t
a re beyo nd the scope of this sect ion.
Admi nistrat ive Use Perm its, Tempo ra r y
Use Permits, and Special Use Permirs
shall lle subject to the procedural
requ irements of VVMC Chapcer 14-12.
Pare 5. Required determinations fo r
iss uances of Condi ti onal Use Perm its,
includ ing Spec ial Use Pecmits a nd
Administrat ive Use Permits, are fo und
in Section 6.4.C.
11,(1 DOWNTOWN WATSONVILLE. SPE:ClrlC PLAN
Table 6 - 3 Land Use Regulations
Use
Alcohol-Related: Croup A
Alcohol-Rel ated : Croup B
Antique Shop
Automobile Service
cannabis Fa<:ility
Church
Drive -through
Dwelling Unit
Heavy industrial &
Manufacturing
Light Industrial / R& O
Office
Pay day Lenders
Sto rage/ warehouse
Thrift Shop
Use Code65
Vehicle fueling facility
ElseYVhere fn the
Zone
A UP req uired 1
SUP required 1
No t pe,mined o n parcels froming M ain Su eet ;
AUP required e lsewh ere
Not permitted
Pe rmitted on upper floor s;
No t perm itted on ground floors
Permitted o n
upper floors;
Not permitted o n
ground floors
No t permitted
Not permitted
Perm itted o n
upper floors;
AUP required for
g ro u nd floor s
Not permitted
No t permitted
SUP Required
No t permitted
Permitted
Pe rmitted
Not permitted
Not.p e rmitted o n parcels fro nting Main Street;
AUP req u ired e lsewh ere
SUP re quired
Not p e rmitted
Downtown
Neighborhood
AUP req u ired
No t permitted
Permitted
Not permitted
AUP required'
Pe rmitted
Not permitted
A UP required
1. Additional requirements for alcohol-related uses found in the City's Alcohol Ordinance, in WMC Chapter H-25 apply.
Downtown
lndustrlal 1
AUP re qui1ed
Permitted
SUP Required
Pe, mittecl 2
Permilted 2
Permitt ed
Permitted
AU P required
2. Per WMC .91-1-12.100, all new industrial development, as with all new developmelll, will be subjecr ro requiredfi11di1igs of compatibility be1,veen adjacent uses related lo traffic, noise, odors, visual rwisances, and other similar adverse effects.
DWSP specifically mandates that Churches must obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP).
The Westview Presbyterian Church is nonconforming, ergo, the church is already in violation by not holding one. Introducing a new use (to wit, an LBNC) requires addressing the church's nonconforming status first, as the new use would significantly alter the character of the site. The Zoning administrator failed to address this significant change in its Approval process.
AB 101 allows LBNCs as a use by right only in areas zoned for mixed use or nonresidential uses permitting multifamily housing. If the church's zoning is incompatible or nonconforming, the protections under AB 101 cannot be automatically permitted. The state law does NOT override the requirement for the underlying use to be legal or conforming in the first place. If the church is nonconforming (and it is) and lacks a valid conditional use permit (and it does), AB 101 cannot bypass these local zoning issues.
5 Attachment 4
6 of 177
DWSP Specific Plan Map
FIGURE 1-2
Jefferson St
Sudden St
Rodrit1,uez St
.,
<Jl
£
"'
Walker St
.,
<Jl
-r: 1~,---
1 ,.1
Mai~ Sr (SR 152)
\
\
I I
-1
11\1/:-1
:l_L_ll
DOWNTOWN WATSONVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Wd!Sonville
Kgh School
ll
I
I
l7
~driguez St
Youtn
Cent•r
Marchant St
Comnl,Hlty -·
"' t
Main St
I
Specific Plan Boundary
Bu ilding Footprint
- Parks/ Open Space
Waterway
in
C
e
LL
w
I ' r _______ .J
I
I
Grove St
In
l:
e
LL
;;;;
0 200' 5()(}
L~I
100' 400'
11 6
Attachment 4
7 of 177
'
DWSP Regulating Plan Map
CHA.PTER 6--LANO USE & ZONING Jefferson St
i
, ~"'lc-... _.l
·, /
\ / ·v·
I... - . -- ·- - ·-
Rodriguez
ti
-5
"'
watl<er St
FIGURE 6-1
REGULATING PLAN
Source: City of Watsonville (2022): Santa
Cruz County (2021): ESRI (2022).
;
I St L--
\~ ,~
I..--·
I
ZO"ES OVERLAVS
Locust St
OowntOM> Co,y - M.iln Sl:rfft
OClwn- Neiifl>bothoad t..reway
OcWntown fnd11strid .;I'/✓ NeiCJ,bo,rhood Tlsllilltlon
I\JbUc Faclllli!I
Marchant St
µ
{/)
µ
C:
I"
CJ
U)
E
w
.
I
.
I
.
fl
~"'. 'I
Grove St
I ,_. _ __....
. ~---------
,,
---,; ,
:_ _ _, Speclfle PIAASOundaty
- RillLLJ11e
- WaNrwJl'J 157
7 Attachment 4
8 of 177
Attachment 15: Page 74 of 512 Page 332 of 1242
Lot Map of the Church
5 Cherry Court
/
/
120 First Street /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
8 Attachment 4
9 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures Watsonville's Conflicted Role to Identify the
Site and Streamline the Permitting Procedure
According to February 14, 2023 Monterey County Board of Supervisors Documents and an August 21, 2023 letter from Monterey County (MOCO) Director of Homeless Services
Roxanne Wilson to former Watsonville City Manager Rene
Mendez, the role of the Watsonville Zoning Administrator in the Tiny Village Project was to:
1. Identify the site
2. Streamline the permitting process.
The responsibility to identify a project site lies with the Applicant, not the Zoning Administrator. In this instance, the Zoning Administrator's selection of the site raises serious ethical concerns regarding impartiality and suggests a
potential overreach of authority, particularly given the Zoning Administrator's stated role to "streamline the permitting process."
By taking on an unorthodox role that extends beyond its defined scope, the Zoning Administrator has not only
contravened Watsonville's Zoning Code but has also breached fundamental principles of professional and ethical conduct.
This conduct represents a significant departure from the standards expected of zoning professionals, undermining the integrity of the land use planning process.
9 Attachment 4
10 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures Streamline the Permitting Process
"As we discussed throughout the application
process, the County of Monterey will pursue the
funds to plan, develop and implement the project;
the County of Santa Cruz will assist with identifying
long-term funds; and the City will streamline the
permitting process." [Emphasis added]
Roxanne Wilson
Monterey County Homeless Services Director
August 21, 2023 letter to former Watsonville City Manager, Rene Mendez 10 Attachment 4
11 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures Council Members were Kept in the Dark
According to the Minutes of the June 23, 2023 Special
City Council Meeting, certain Council Members were
kept in the dark.
Member Dutra stated his concerns with
information regarding the project being
published by Monterey County and the
challenges faced by Council Members who
were unaware.
Three Council Members, Ari Parker, Casey Clark, and
Jimmy Dutra, called the Special Meeting for this reason.
It is unclear if any non-agendized Council Meetings
were held or if there were possible Brown Act
Violations.
11 Attachment 4
12 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures Council Members were Kept in the Dark
JIMMY DUTRA STATEMENT:
To some of us it seems like there was this deal was done behind closed doors already in that we have nothing we don't have a say in it. I mean, that was the urgency for you know, me requesting this meeting is that, you know, people are talking about this and we aren't able to talk about it because we haven't publicly had the conversation. So after today we can all go out and speak how we feel about this project. I would imagine. Sam, is that correct? I mean, we can have our own opinions, because this puts us in a really bad position where our constituents are coming to us asking us questions about quotes that you're giving and that other people in Monterey County and Santa Cruz County are going on TV and the media speaking, and we don't we we can't comment on it. We have because a lot of us don't have the information about what to how to respond to it. [Emphasis added] Sources:
City of Watsonville video of June 23, 2023 Special Council Meeting [22: 13] Clip of Jimmy Dutra on the project being done behind closed doors 12 Attachment 4
13 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures Principal Planner Matt Orbach Acknowledged
the Review Process was Siloed
According to the Al transcription of a May 29, 2024 conference call with Monterey County and City Staff, Principal Planner Matt Orbach stated:
I've been asking questions about this project since last year, and it's been siloed. I don't know upstairs at the management level, and has never trickled down to the people who should actually be reviewing this until at this point this year.
As per email exchanges dated June 15, 2023 with former Community Development Director Suzi Merriam and Principal Planner Matt Orbach, Orbach was not informed about the Tiny Village project until the KSBW News feature.
The exclusion of Principal Planner Orbach from discussions regarding this development constituted a significant procedural defect. As the individual responsible for overseeing zoning compliance and land use planning, his involvement was a fundamental aspect of ensuring adherence to established processes and regulations.
13 Attachment 4
14 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures "Sorry my frustration is, all of this is outside is happening outside of our review process. And so this, this is why this has been really, really hair pulling. I've been asking questions about this project since last year, and it's been siloed. I don't know upstairs at the management level, and has never trickled down to the people who should actually be reviewing this until at this point this year. So it's just, it's it's hard cause we. What we do is review things like this. What we do is we provide feedback so that you can design these projects in ways that work. And it just has never gotten to us to conduct that level of review." [Emphasis added]
- Matt Orbach, May 29, 2024 Recorded Call with Monterey County 14 Attachment 4
15 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures Suzi Merriam Falsely Stated Her Knowledge
of the Tiny Village Project
SUZI MERRIAM'S' STATEMENT:
During this Special Council Meeting on June 23, 2023, Community Development Director Suzi Merriam stated:
My understanding and again because we don't have any
information on how this is going to be operated or even what its gonna look like, I have not seen anything we've only talked about it is that this is an emergency shelter and so that I would expect that they would be following the emergency shelter regulations. I have talked with the homeless services manager for the County of Santa Cruz checking in on this question and he indicated that yes, it will be operated like emergency shelter. That was his understanding. [Emphasis added]
In an email to Principal Planner Matt Orbach dated June 15, 2023, Merriam stated, "The City was part of the application process- we have been very aware of the project internally."
Sources:
City of Watsonville video of June 23. 2023 Special Council Meeting [43: 15] Clip of Suzi Merriam misleading Council on knowledge of project 15 Attachment 4
16 of 177
Highlights of Watsonville's Zoning Administrator's Improper and Defective Procedures City Manager Tamara Vides Falsely Stated to the
Council that the City had not Received an
Application
During the June 11, 2024 City Council Meeting, City Manager Tamara Vides provided an update to the Tiny Village project in her update stating:
We're all working together to make sure that we all understand this timing, the timing and the proposal of this project, I think one important thing to consider is that the city of Watsonville has not yet received an application for this project, and when we do, the team will review the application, and we will be able to provide more concrete feedback, not only to the applicant, but also have a more robust discussion with the council once we have a full understanding of these projects. [Emphasis added]
This is inaccurate. The application was submitted on October 24, 2023.
Sources:
City of Watsonville video of June 11, 2024 Council Meeting (1: 13:411 16 Attachment 4
17 of 177
Homeless-Related Crime in District 1 in the Past Two Weeks District 1: Chronic Homeless-Related Crime -
Federal Post Office Vandalized
Watsonville's Downtown Post Office vandalized by homeless person. The post office is next to City Hall, the Police Department, and the proposed Tiny Village site. 11/18/2024 21:13 24W-0404l 200 Block of Main St
11/ 18/2024 21:15
RP reported a female shattered the
post office window and made entry.
Once the female made entry, she
continued to shatter additional
windows. Shortly after WPD arrived
and detained a female who later
verbally identified herself as (Al)
Alma Delia Piceno
459 - PC; Burglary; Felony
594(A)(J)- PC; Vandalism:deface Property;
Felony
(Juvenile name withheld.)
(Non-Victim/Non-Arrestee name
withheld.)
Arrestee - Piceno-Bclmontes, Alma
Delia, 37
J./
Attachment 4
18 of 177
Homeless-Related Crime in District 1 in the Past Two Weeks District 1: Chronic Homeless-Related Crime -
Walker Street Business Fire
Based on neighborhood feedback, it is my understanding that this fire was started by a homeless person
18 Attachment 4
19 of 177
Homeless-Related Crime in District 1 in the Past Two Weeks District 1: Chronic Homeless-Related Crime -
Homeless Violent Attack with Weapon Near
Railroad (Unreported even though 6 police cars, 8
police officers and a firetruck were on the scene)
November 26, 2024: 8 Police Officers, 6 Police Cars, 1 Fire Truck on scene. No report report. No Pulse Point. No Police Blotter. No News. 19 Attachment 4
20 of 177
Homeless-related Crime in District 1 in the Past Two Weeks District 1: Chronic Retail Theft -
Davis Auto Parts Break-in
On November, 2024, there was a break-in at Davis Auto done by unknown persons. However, it was of a pattern that matched previous break-ins that were verifiably done by homeless people.
20 Attachment 4
21 of 177
Historical documents relevant to the Zoning Administrator's improper procedure December 3, 2024 Letter from Catalina Torres
Regarding Recusal of Jenni Veitch-Olson
Description:
December 3, 2024 Letter from Catalina Torres requesting Planning Commissioner Jenni Veitch-Olson recuse herself due to the conflict with with the Presbytery of San Jose and the Westview Presbyterian Church.
Summary:
The appellant, representing La Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social, requests Planning Commissioner Jenni Veitch-Olson recuse herself from decisions on Westview Presbyterian Church and the Tiny Village project due to conflicts of interest. These include her spouse's financial ties and leadership roles with the Presbytery of San Jose, the Presbytery's ownership of her residence, and potential due process violations. Recusal is urged to ensure legal compliance and public trust.
21 Attachment 4
22 of 177
Catalina Torres
121 2nd Street, Apt.# F
Watsonville, California
(831) 706-1429
catraml [email protected]
December 2, 2024
Watsonville Planning Commission
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal (#PP2024-7954) of Zoning Administrator Approval of an Administrative Review Permit for a Low-Barrier Navigation Center:
Request for Recusal of Commissioner Veitch-Olson on Matters Involving Westview Presbyterian Church and the Tiny Village Project Dear Chairperson Acosta and Members of the Planning Commission, I am the appellant and a member of a neighborhood coalition, La Coalici6n del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social. I am writing to formally request that Planning Commissioner Jenni Veitch-Olson recuse herself from participating in any deliberations, discussions, or votes concerning Westview Presbyterian Church and the Tiny Village project. This request is made in light of the following clear and significant conflicts of interest.
A. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Veitch-Olson has financial ties to the Presbytery of San Jose, which governs and provides resources to the Westview Presbyterian Church. Specifically:
1. Spousal Employment: According to Commissioner Veitch-Olson's 2023 Fom1 700 covering the time period from January 1, 2022 through December 31 , 2022, 22 Attachment 4
23 of 177
Chairperson Acosta and Members of the Commission
December 2, 2024
Page2
Planning Commissioner Veitch-Olson 's spouse, Robby Olson, earned between $10,000 and $100,000 from the Presbytery of San Jose. (See Attachment 1).
Veitch-Olson's Form 700, covering the time period from January 1, 2023 through December 31 , 2023, lists no income from either Veitch-Olson or her husband's affiliations with the Watsonville Public House and/or the Presbytery of San Jose. (See Attachment 2). During the Special Planning Commission meeting that occurred on November 19, 2024, Veitch-Olson did mention that she has a job. It is unclear whether she generates any income from her work.
2. Residential Ties: Commissioner Veitch-Olson resides at 126 Rogers, Watsonville, California [APN: 018-051-16]. According to the Santa Cruz County Recorder's Office website, this property is owned by the Presbytery of San Jose, creating an ongoing financial relationship.
3. Business Ties: Watsonville Public House is a qualified 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located at 645 Main Street, Watsonville, that opened in late 2023 to early 2024. According to the website of the Presbytery of San Jose, Watsonville Public House is a downtown brewery and pub that provides a welcoming space for the community, especially those uninterested or unwming to come to a traditional church. Revenues will support the mission purposes of the Presbytery of San Jose with a focus on the needs of South Santa Cruz County. The Executive Director (and Brew Master and Pastor) is Rev. Robby Olson.
a. According to the California Secretary of State:
1. Commissioner Veitch-Olson's husband, Rev. Robby Olson is the Chief Executive Officer of the Watsonville Public House. ii. The street address of the Watsonville Public House is 890 Meridian Way, San Jose, California 95126. This is the same address of the Presbytery of San Jose. (See attached Statement of Information CA Nonprofit Corporation).
iii. Charles May is the Secretary of the Watsonville Public House, whose address is at 890 Meridian Way, San Jose. According to the Executive Presbytery of San Jose's website, Elder Charlie May (Trinity, Santa Cruz) is on the Administrative C01mnission for 23 Attachment 4
24 of 177
Chairperson Acosta and Members of the Commission
December 2, 2024
Watsonville. Reverend Dan Hoffman from the Westview
Presbyterian Church is also on this Administrative Commission. iv. Erica M Rader is the Chief Financial Officer of the Watsonville Public House. She is the Stated Clerk of the Presbyteoi of San Jose. b. According to the Santa Cruz County Recorder's Office, the property on which the Watsonville Public House, located at 625 Main St, Watsonville, CA 95076, is owned by the Presbytery of San Jose [APN: 01814231].
The Presbytery of San Jose has direct governance over the Westview Presbyterian Church and presents ru1 undeniable conflict of interest. This makes it impossible for Commissioner Veitch-Olson to participate in these matters without violating the law or jeopardizing the integrity of the Commission's process.
B. California Government Code Section 87100
California Government Code Section 87100 also supports the need for Veitch-Olson to recuse herself. The code states: .
A public official at any level of state or local government shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the public official's official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest.
C. Due Process Concerns
The relationship between Commissioner Veitch-Olson and her spouse raises serious constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires impartiality in governmental decision-making.
Given Rev. Robby Olson's leadership roles ru1d financial ties to the Presbytery of San Jose, a reasonable person could question whether Commissioner Veitch-Olson can fairly and impartially decide matters involving Westview Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery's ownership of her residence and her husband's business property (as well as church affiliation), and the Presbytery of San Jose's direct involvement in the Tiny Village project compound the appearance of bias.
24 Attachment 4
25 of 177
Attachment 4
26 of 177 Page 350 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 92 of 512
Attachment 4
27 of 177 Page 351 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 93 of 512
Attachment 4
28 of 177 Page 352 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 94 of 512
Attachment 4
29 of 177 Page 353 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 95 of 512
Attachment 4
30 of 177 Page 354 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 96 of 512
Attachment 4
31 of 177 Page 355 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 97 of 512
Attachment 4
32 of 177 Page 356 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 98 of 512
Attachment 4
33 of 177 Page 357 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 99 of 512
Attachment 4
34 of 177 Page 358 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 100 of 512
Attachment 4
35 of 177 Page 359 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 101 of 512
Attachment 4
36 of 177 Page 360 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 102 of 512
Attachment 4
37 of 177 Page 361 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 103 of 512
Attachment 4
38 of 177 Page 362 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 104 of 512
Attachment 4
39 of 177 Page 363 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 105 of 512
Attachment 4
40 of 177 Page 364 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 106 of 512
Attachment 4
41 of 177 Page 365 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 107 of 512
Attachment 4
42 of 177 Page 366 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 108 of 512
Attachment 4
43 of 177 Page 367 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 109 of 512
Attachment 4
44 of 177 Page 368 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 110 of 512
Attachment 4
45 of 177 Page 369 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 111 of 512
Attachment 4
46 of 177 Page 370 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 112 of 512
Attachment 4
47 of 177 Page 371 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 113 of 512
Attachment 4
48 of 177 Page 372 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 114 of 512
Attachment 4
49 of 177 Page 373 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 115 of 512
Attachment 4
50 of 177 Page 374 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 116 of 512
Attachment 4
51 of 177 Page 375 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 117 of 512
Attachment 4
52 of 177 Page 376 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 118 of 512
Attachment 4
53 of 177 Page 377 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 119 of 512
Attachment 4
54 of 177 Page 378 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 120 of 512
Attachment 4
55 of 177 Page 379 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 121 of 512
Attachment 4
56 of 177 Page 380 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 122 of 512
Attachment 4
57 of 177 Page 381 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 123 of 512
Attachment 4
58 of 177 Page 382 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 124 of 512
Attachment 4
59 of 177 Page 383 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 125 of 512
Attachment 4
60 of 177 Page 384 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 126 of 512
Attachment 4
61 of 177 Page 385 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 127 of 512
Attachment 4
62 of 177 Page 386 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 128 of 512
Attachment 4
63 of 177 Page 387 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 129 of 512
Attachment 4
64 of 177 Page 388 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 130 of 512
Attachment 4
65 of 177 Page 389 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 131 of 512
Attachment 4
66 of 177 Page 390 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 132 of 512
Attachment 4
67 of 177 Page 391 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 133 of 512
Attachment 4
68 of 177 Page 392 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 134 of 512
Attachment 4
69 of 177 Page 393 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 135 of 512
Attachment 4
70 of 177 Page 394 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 136 of 512
Attachment 4
71 of 177 Page 395 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 137 of 512
Attachment 4
72 of 177 Page 396 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 138 of 512
Attachment 4
73 of 177 Page 397 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 139 of 512
Attachment 4
74 of 177 Page 398 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 140 of 512
Attachment 4
75 of 177 Page 399 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 141 of 512
Attachment 4
76 of 177 Page 400 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 142 of 512
Attachment 4
77 of 177 Page 401 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 143 of 512
Attachment 4
78 of 177 Page 402 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 144 of 512
Attachment 4
79 of 177 Page 403 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 145 of 512
Attachment 4
80 of 177 Page 404 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 146 of 512
Attachment 4
81 of 177 Page 405 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 147 of 512
Attachment 4
82 of 177 Page 406 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 148 of 512
Attachment 4
83 of 177 Page 407 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 149 of 512
Attachment 4
84 of 177 Page 408 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 150 of 512
Attachment 4
85 of 177 Page 409 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 151 of 512
Attachment 4
86 of 177 Page 410 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 152 of 512
Attachment 4
87 of 177 Page 411 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 153 of 512
Attachment 4
88 of 177 Page 412 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 154 of 512
Attachment 4
89 of 177 Page 413 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 155 of 512
Attachment 4
90 of 177 Page 414 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 156 of 512
Attachment 4
91 of 177 Page 415 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 157 of 512
Attachment 4
92 of 177 Page 416 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 158 of 512
Attachment 4
93 of 177 Page 417 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 159 of 512
Attachment 4
94 of 177 Page 418 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 160 of 512
Attachment 4
95 of 177 Page 419 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 161 of 512
Attachment 4
96 of 177 Page 420 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 162 of 512
Attachment 4
97 of 177 Page 421 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 163 of 512
Attachment 4
98 of 177 Page 422 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 164 of 512
Attachment 4
99 of 177 Page 423 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 165 of 512
Attachment 4
100 of 177 Page 424 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 166 of 512
Attachment 4
101 of 177 Page 425 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 167 of 512
Attachment 4
102 of 177 Page 426 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 168 of 512
Attachment 4
103 of 177 Page 427 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 169 of 512
Attachment 4
104 of 177 Page 428 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 170 of 512
Attachment 4
105 of 177 Page 429 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 171 of 512
Attachment 4
106 of 177 Page 430 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 172 of 512
Attachment 4
107 of 177 Page 431 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 173 of 512
Attachment 4
108 of 177 Page 432 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 174 of 512
Attachment 4
109 of 177 Page 433 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 175 of 512
Attachment 4
110 of 177 Page 434 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 176 of 512
Attachment 4
111 of 177 Page 435 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 177 of 512
Attachment 4
112 of 177 Page 436 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 178 of 512
Attachment 4
113 of 177 Page 437 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 179 of 512
Attachment 4
114 of 177 Page 438 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 180 of 512
Attachment 4
115 of 177 Page 439 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 181 of 512
Attachment 4
116 of 177 Page 440 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 182 of 512
Attachment 4
117 of 177 Page 441 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 183 of 512
Attachment 4
118 of 177 Page 442 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 184 of 512
Attachment 4
119 of 177 Page 443 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 185 of 512
Attachment 4
120 of 177 Page 444 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 186 of 512
Attachment 4
121 of 177 Page 445 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 187 of 512
Attachment 4
122 of 177 Page 446 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 188 of 512
Attachment 4
123 of 177 Page 447 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 189 of 512
Attachment 4
124 of 177 Page 448 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 190 of 512
Attachment 4
125 of 177 Page 449 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 191 of 512
Attachment 4
126 of 177 Page 450 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 192 of 512
Attachment 4
127 of 177 Page 451 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 193 of 512
Attachment 4
128 of 177 Page 452 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 194 of 512
Attachment 4
129 of 177 Page 453 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 195 of 512
Attachment 4
130 of 177 Page 454 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 196 of 512
Attachment 4
131 of 177 Page 455 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 197 of 512
Attachment 4
132 of 177 Page 456 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 198 of 512
Attachment 4
133 of 177 Page 457 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 199 of 512
Attachment 4
134 of 177 Page 458 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 200 of 512
Attachment 4
135 of 177 Page 459 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 201 of 512
Attachment 4
136 of 177 Page 460 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 202 of 512
Attachment 4
137 of 177 Page 461 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 203 of 512
Attachment 4
138 of 177 Page 462 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 204 of 512
Attachment 4
139 of 177 Page 463 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 205 of 512
Attachment 4
140 of 177 Page 464 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 206 of 512
Attachment 4
141 of 177 Page 465 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 207 of 512
Attachment 4
142 of 177 Page 466 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 208 of 512
Attachment 4
143 of 177 Page 467 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 209 of 512
Attachment 4
144 of 177 Page 468 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 210 of 512
Attachment 4
145 of 177 Page 469 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 211 of 512
Attachment 4
146 of 177 Page 470 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 212 of 512
Attachment 4
147 of 177 Page 471 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 213 of 512
Attachment 4
148 of 177 Page 472 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 214 of 512
Attachment 4
149 of 177 Page 473 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 215 of 512
Attachment 4
150 of 177 Page 474 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 216 of 512
Attachment 4
151 of 177 Page 475 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 217 of 512
Attachment 4
152 of 177 Page 476 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 218 of 512
Attachment 4
153 of 177 Page 477 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 219 of 512
Attachment 4
154 of 177 Page 478 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 220 of 512
Attachment 4
155 of 177 Page 479 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 221 of 512
Attachment 4
156 of 177 Page 480 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 222 of 512
Attachment 4
157 of 177 Page 481 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 223 of 512
Attachment 4
158 of 177 Page 482 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 224 of 512
Attachment 4
159 of 177 Page 483 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 225 of 512
Attachment 4
160 of 177 Page 484 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 226 of 512
Attachment 4
161 of 177 Page 485 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 227 of 512
Attachment 4
162 of 177 Page 486 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 228 of 512
Attachment 4
163 of 177 Page 487 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 229 of 512
Attachment 4
164 of 177 Page 488 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 230 of 512
Attachment 4
165 of 177 Page 489 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 231 of 512
Attachment 4
166 of 177 Page 490 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 232 of 512
Attachment 4
167 of 177 Page 491 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 233 of 512
Attachment 4
168 of 177 Page 492 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 234 of 512
Attachment 4
169 of 177 Page 493 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 235 of 512
Attachment 4
170 of 177 Page 494 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 236 of 512
Attachment 4
171 of 177 Page 495 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 237 of 512
Attachment 4
172 of 177 Page 496 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 238 of 512
Attachment 4
173 of 177 Page 497 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 239 of 512
Attachment 4
174 of 177 Page 498 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 240 of 512
Attachment 4
175 of 177 Page 499 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 241 of 512
Attachment 4
176 of 177 Page 500 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 242 of 512
Attachment 4
177 of 177 Page 501 of 1242
Attachment 15: Page 243 of 512
Received
Watsonville
Historical documents relevant to the Zoning Administrator's improper proced&J~ Clerk May 29, 2024 Transcription of Call with MOCO
and City of Watsonville
Description:
This is a transcription of a call with MOCO and Matt Orbach.
Summary:
This transcription mentions how political the matter was and how the Principal Planner was kept away from the project until the time of the call.
Wilson noted that the County didn't know about the FEMA requirement "until a many months after it happened."
Sarah Federico from MOCO stated:
The agreement with dignity moves. I mean, this isn't your run of the mill permitting project.
Obviously, there's a lot of things going on with this. r think that the city of Watsonville was asked to be on the mou, they declined. It's unfortunate, you know. We we don't want to talk about the politics, but if that truly is political, that the city of Watsonville is not even part of the mou, and they should be, and this should have been at a partnership that was established with the city of Watsonville, so that we could move this along easily and more streamlined. But no, it hasn't worked out that way, for all the reasons we sat here, and we've talked about over and over again. But I came into this project after I got hired in December. [Emphasis added)
Orbach also stated:
You know what city councils heard related to you know you presenting and saying you're gonna be constructing next month. There's kind of a disconnect between that and sort of you know what we've seen internally as staff, where you know, we technically, formally, we've only ever seen your initial submittal and so, and we provided a guidance letter, and we've not received a recent middle since then. So you know, Staff really isn't in a position to talk or present anything, because we only have what you originally submitted, which was in an on an entirely different parcel and in a different address, in a different configuration. I mean, it's not even remotely close to what we've been discussing recently. So, you can understand why city management feels like they're put in a bit of a predicament in terms of how to present information on this. [Emphasis added]
177
Attachment 5
1 of 266
"Sorry my frustration is, all of this is outside is happening outside of our review process. And so this, this is why this has been really, really hair pulling. I've been asking questions about this project since last year, and it's been siloed. I don't know upstairs at the management level, and has never trickled down to the people who should actually be reviewing this until at this point this year. So it's just, it's it's hard cause we. What we do is review things like this. What we do is we provide feedback so that you can design these projects in ways that work. And it just has never gotten to us to conduct that level of review." [Emphasis added]
- Matt Orbach, May 29, 2024 Recorded Call with Monterey County 178
Attachment 5
2 of 266
WEBV'1"l'
l
00 : 00 : 00 . 100 --> 00 : 00 : 00 . 960
Roxanne Wilson : I am .
2 00 : 00 : 01 . 760 --> 00 : 00 : 04 . 080
Roxanne Wilson : I l ike be ing able to r efer back.
3 00 : 00 : 05 . 130 --> 00 : 00 : 13 . 019
Sarah Federico : We ' ve been working wi th a lot of t his , the AI companions .
This i s not AI companion . What we tu rned on . I just turned on the r egul ar cloud
4 00 : 00 : 13 . 280 - -> 00 : 00 : 16 . 680
Sarah Federico : recording . So it's just like a raw transcript . But 5 00 : 00 : 17 . 270 --> 00 : 00 :19 . 989
Sarah Federico : at the county we've been trying to use this test 6 00 : 00 : 20 . 230 - - > 00 : 00 : 27 . 500
Sarah Federico : p r oduct called AI Companion, bu t i t onl y works . If o t her peop l e within ou r organi za tio n , the coun ty have i t 7 00 : 00 : 27.640 --> 00 : 00 : 29 . 240
Sarah Federico : s o I can ' t record i t .
8 00 : 00 : 29 . 490 --> 00 : 00 : 32 . 419
Sarah Federico : But a lot of times t he AI gets it wrong . So . 9 00 : 00 : 32 . 420 --> 00 : 00 : 36 . 819
Roxanne Wilson : Wrong often, and i t ' s ki nd of fun , though, to read i t . 10 00 : 00 : 38 . 450 --> 00 : 00 : 43 . 999
Sarah Federico : Just not terribly he l pful. Have you seen these on ot her mee tings? You ' ve been on Joey or Matt t hese AI
11 00 : 00 : 44 . 290 --> 00 : 00 : 47 . 300
Sarah Federico : summaries, or read no t es and things . Yeah . 12 00 : 00 : 47 . 790 --> 00 : 00 : 49 . 139
J oseph DeSant e : You )mow, and we had
179
Attachment 5
3 of 266
13 00 : 00 : 50 . 020 - - > 00 : 00 : 53.749
,Toseph DeSante : Susie , we had the AI thing, and
14 00 : 00 : 55 . 790 --> 00 : 00 : 59 . 7 60
Joseph DeSante : she mentioned that the AI takes scripts , and then 15 00 : 00 : 59 . 800 --> 00 : 01 : 01 . 880
Joseph DeSante : that is now public record .
16 00 : 01 : 02 . 360 --> 00 : 01 : 03 .920
Joseph DeSante : and can be
17 00 : 01 : 04 . 260 -- > 00 : 01 :0 6 . 270
Joseph DeSante : requested by the public .
18 00 :01 : 08 . 565 --> 00 : 01 : 09 . 120
Sarah Federico : Oh !
19 00 : 01 : 09 . 700 - - > 00 : 01 : 14 . 280
Roxanne Wilson : That ' s why it ' s why the county doesn ' t allow Otter and all those other t hings.
20 00 :01 : 14 . 930 --> 00 : 01 : 21 . 410
Sa r ah Federico : Oh , we ' re not allowed t o . We ' re not allowed to use it unless if I 'm having a meeting with Roxanne .
21 00 : 01 : 21 . 800 --> 00 : 01 : 31 . 1 90
Sarah Federico : she and I can use it together , o r one of my teammates will have team meetings with Ro:<anne , and we "ll do i t. But i t ' s kind o f funny because i t
22 00 : 01 : 31 . 440 --> 00 : 01 : 33 . 940
Sarah Federico : the AI make s some assumptions .
23 00 : 01 : 34 . 370 --> 00 : 01 : 35 . 190
Sarah Federico : and it
24 00 : 01 : 35 . 700 --> 00 : 01 : 42 . 990
Sarah Federico : i t part of i t ' s helpful. So then you start to figure ou t , we ll, maybe you need to t a l k a certain way when you ' re in these meetings with the AI ,
180
Attachment 5
4 of 266
25 00 : 01 : 43.280 --> 00 : 01 : 48 . 420
Sarah Federico : so that it r ecords it correctly because it i t ' s funny we had a conversation about
26 00 : 01 : 48 . 510 - - > 00 : 01 : 50.799
Sarah Federico : Suntan Lotion and Spf
27 00 : 01 : 51 . 250 --> 00 : 02 : 01 . 250
Sarah Federico: and the AI . The AI started talking about how we have t o prac tice good heal th, care , skin care , and all this stuff whi ch we never said . We never even use those words, but it was
28 00 : 02 : 02 . 200 --> 00 :02:05 . 630
Sarah Federico : assumed by AI . But that ' s what we wanted t o say about 29 00 : 02 : 06 . 610 --> 00 : 02 : 11 . 350
Sarah Federico : use Fdf, 50 or something, anyway .
30 00 : 02 : 11 . 350 --> 00 : 02 : 14 . 450
Roxanne Wils on : Is dignity moves gonna come , or is it Just us . 31 00 : 02 : 14 . 980 --> 00 : 02 : 16 . 279
Sarah Fede rico : They're supposed to be here .
32 00 : 02 : 16.830 --> 00 : 02 :17 . 580
Roxanne Wi lson : Okay .
33 00 : 02 : 20 . 250 --> 00 : 02 : 23 . 509
Roxanne Wilson : But Matt and J oey, do we ?
34 00 : 02 : 23 . 910 --> 00 : 02 : 32 . 286
Roxanne Wilson : We ' ve been going back and
engaging with Hcd . Hcd. Had sent out that
35 00 : 02 : 33 . 330 --> 00 : 02 : 41 . 430
Roxanne Wilson : very unhelpful email , saying, we actually talked about it . We don't !:now . You probably need to talk to these people in our agency .
36 00 : 02 : 41 . 490 --> 00:02 : 43 . 690
Roxanne Wilson : and originally we thought
181
Attachment 5
5 of 266
37 00 : 02 : 44 . 140 --> 00 : 02 : 54.839
Roxanne Wilson : the sprinklers weren 't going t o cost that much, so we ' 11 just pay for it, and then the church is open to doing the your . Upon your request , I forgot what it's called reciprocal
38 00 : 02 : 55 . 630 --> 00 : 02 : 57 . 709
Roxanne Wilson : easements . Is that what it's called . 39 00 : 02 : 59 . 270 --> 00 : 02 : 59 . 920
Sarah Federico : So the .
40 00 : 02 : 59 . 920 --> 00 : 03 : 03 . 449
Roxanne Wilson : I s open to us , so that ' s great. We thought we had it . I t was done .
41 00 : 03 : 03 . 650 --> 00 : 03 : 16 . 920
Roxanne Wilson : but n ow we don't have it, because we ' re finding out. '!'he sprinklers can cost up to 500 extra $1 , 000 , which we really don't have.
We didn ' t have the 1 milli on to lift the project up . So I am 42 00 : 03 : 17 . 140 --> 00 : 03: 23 . 949
Roxanne Wilson : having our l and use people starting to review this, and maybe they can help provide some guidance to us as well . 43 00 : 03 : 24 . 330 --> 00 : 03 : 31 . 539
Roxanne Wilson : But I think that it would be he l pful if we engage with tha t o ther department wi thin the agency
44 00 : 03 : 31. 640 --> 00 : 03 : 38 . 759
Roxanne Wilson : of Heel . And see if they can help . I just don ' t want t o do i t and make . I don ' t want Watson to fee l Watsonville t o feel like 45 00 : 03 : 39 . 290 --> 00 : 03 : 41 . 980
Roxanne Wilson : like I want to do it in partnershi p with Watsonville . ·16
00 : 03 : 42 . 240 --> 00 : 03 : 47 . 430
Roxanne Wilson : Not like we ' re telling the State on what to know . 47 00 : 03 : 47 . 820 --> 00 : 03 : 57 . 820
Roxanne Wilsorl:'so can you , when you get get check in with Susie ? Can you Just l et her know that I ' m asking that we do re- engage with the Heel .
We're just running out of time .
182
Attachment 5
6 of 266
48 00 : 03 : 57 . 980 --> 00 : 03 : 59 . 110
Roxanne Wi lson : and
49 00 : 03 : 59.980 --> 00 : 04 : 06 . 299
Ro:i-:anne Wilson : I don ' t want , if it s t arts raining now, we ' r e at t he point to where we might actually be bu ilding when it's raining 50 00 : 04 : 07 . 090 --> 00 : 04 : 13 . 629
Roi-canne Wilson : so . nd I don ' t want to do that,
have a lot of issues and the JUSt the pressure
51 00 : 04 : 13 . 680 --> 00 : 04 : 15 . 150
Roxanne Wilson : the -county got
52 00 : 04 : 15 . 340 --> 00 : 04 : 23 . 279
Roxanne Wilson : the money last year, and 1t Just kind of looks like we ' re Just sitting on i co the population who is hoping co get served by this progtam .
53 00 : 04 : 27 . 160 --> 00 : 04 : 29 .560
Roxanne Wilson : not to ment i on the St ate and t he i r 54 00 : 04 : 30 . 180 --> 00 : 04 : 35 . 109
Roxanne Wilson : task force that
,:-ome after us at some point .
55 00 : 04 : 37.130 --> 00 : 04 : 49 . 130
Matt Or bach, City of Watsonville : Yeah , I mean, I you know, this did coroe up at l ast night ' s council meeting . We had a few neighbors show up an not have good things to say about the proposed project . Several Cit Counci l members e~-presse
56 00 : 04 : 49 . 280 --> 00 : 04 :54 . 980
Matt Orbach, Ci ty of Watsonvi lle: dismay about how they been kept in the dark on this. So you know, I think
57 00 : 04 : 55 . 500 --> 00 : 05 : 09 . 02 4
Ma tt Orbach, City of Watsonville : upstairs and our new city management , you know, Tama r a Vitas 1s getting gonna be put in a position where she ' s gonna have o present something to them . So you know, I would recorm,end def1n1 tely coordi nating with her .
58 00 : 05 : 09 . 760 --> 00 : 05 :13 . 349
183
Attachment 5
7 of 266
Matt Orbach, City of Watsonville : And you know that can empty up us . But what ' s that?
59 00 : 05 : 13 . 720 --> 00 : 05 : 20 . 859
Roxanne Wilson : Presented to the city council twice on this proJect, and •,1e ·ve done probably like 4 or 5 community engagement sessions . Now . 60 00 : 05 : 22 . 155 --> 00 : 05 : 22 . 929
Roxanne Wilson : So
61 00 : 05 : 23 . 320 --> 00 : 05 : 36 . 770
Ro:,anne Wilson : the neighbors have valid points. I went on a walk wit them . Ancl they showed me what their experience was, and actually thei probl em e;:isted before we even came right.
62 00 : 05 : 36 . 930 --> 00 : 05 : 44 . 260
Roxanne Wilson : There are issues of people Jumping chat fence , walkin down the neighborhood to get to loves and fishes .
63 00 : 05 : 44 . 270 --> 00 : 05 : 45 .700
Roxanne Wilson : the
64 00 : 05 : 45 . 720 --> 00 : 06 : 03 . 94 9
Roxanne Wilson : the stuff that was go ing on with the Salvation Army , where people were kicked out every morning , and f ol ks were just lingering all over the neighborhoods like , it ' s unfortunate , because that preceded us . But we're getting a lot of the pushback, because that's been their real live experience with homeless services .
65 00 : 06 : 0 4 . 360 --> 00 : 06 : 19 . 700
Ro:-{anne Wilson : So we ' re doing everythi ng we can to try to he l p reli eve some of that pressure from the community. We ask , dignity moves to include a a new wall or a new fence , so that we can fix that fence hopping issue , and keep peopl e
66 00 : 06 : 19 . 870 --> 00 : 06 : 25 . 290
Roxanne Wilson : off of that that small , narrow stceet. It ' s not Cherry . I don ' t know wha t the name of that street is.
67 00 : 06 : 25 . 520 --> 00 : 06 : 29 . 560
Ro,:anne Wilson : It ' s lil,e right across from the park . You know what I ' m talking about.
68 00 : 06 : 29 . 850 --> 00 : 06 : 30 .14 0
184
Attachment 5
8 of 266
Mat t Orbach , City of Watsonville : Yep .
69 00 : 06 : 30 . 850 --> 00 : 06 : 31 .1 69
Roxanne Wilson : s o the .
70 00 : 06 : 31 . 170 --> 00 : 06 : 32 . 300
Matt Or bach, Ci t y of Watsonville : Al i . I don ' t t hi nk it has it. 71 00 : 06 : 32 . 300 --> 00 : 06 : 34 . 080
Roxanne Wi lson : Yeah, the littl e al ley thing .
72 00 : 06 : 3 4.4 60 --> 00 : 06 : 38 . 61 9
Roxanne Wi lson: So that nei ghborhood i s the one t hat ' s pushi ng back the ha rdest on it .
73 00 : 06 : 39 . 590 --> 00 : 06 : 50 . 089
Roxanne Wilson : And once t hey showed me what t hey were experiencing . I totally get it . So we ' re goi ng to try to divert people and make them take regul ar roads and not hop t hrough
74 00 : 06 : 50 . 430 --> 00 : 06 : 52 . 250
RoY.anne Wilson : pri vate property . Yeah.
75 00 : 06 : 52 . 250 --> 00 : 06 : 58 . 080
Matt Orbach , City of Watsonville : I wasn ' t , you know, trying to discuss the merits of the proj ect, or anything . I just from a s ort of aesthetic 76 00 : 06 : 58 . 730 --> 00 : 07 : 25 . 390
Matt Orbach, Cit of Watsonville : Pr perspective . You know what cit councils heard related to you know you presenting and saying you ·re gonna be constructing next month . There's kind of a disconnect between that and sort of you know what we've seen internally as staff, where y ou know, we technically, f ormally, we ' ve only ever seen y our i nitial submi ttal and so, and we provided a guidance letter, and we ·ve no received a recent middle since then . So you know, Staff really isn ' t in a position to talk 77 00 : 07 : 25 . 390 --> 00 : 07 : 50 . 139
Matt Orbach, City of Watsonv i lle : or present anything, because we onl ~ have what you original y submitted, which was 1n an on an ent1rel different parcel and 1n a different address, 111 a different configuration . I mean , it ' s not even remotely close o what we've been discussing recently . So , you can understand why city management feels like they "re put in a bit of predicament 1n terms of how to present 1nforma ion on this. Given those 2 conflictin
185
Attachment 5
9 of 266
]8
00 : 07 : 50 . 390 --> 00 : 07 : 58 . 1 10
Hatt Orbach, City of Watsonville : faxes . So I Just wanted t o make yo aware of that. So that ' s once again . This 1s that ' s in the s realm where you ' re in the you know the plan .
79 00 : 07 : 58 .110 --> 00 : 08 : 21 . 900
Roxanne Wilson : Unl1m1ted 1n 1t . I mean, it ' s similarly, what what I did not sa is that we were constructin . What I did say is that we wer~ did pass che county had pat approved our agreements, so we were moving forward . I was hoping we would have at least had a permit at this by this point, but I do recognize that when we move the par cel that c hanged some things .
80 00 : 08 : 22 . 378 --> 00 : 08 : 29 . 939
Roxanne Wilson : It' s multifaceted . any different par nPrs, you know, 11 ke the church i s no involved in these discussions, but it ' s he1 r roperty .
81 00 : 08 : 30 . 240 --> 00 : 08 : 38 . 860
Roxanne Wilson: So it "s i t ' s an unfortunate thing . And and when peopl_ are really upset , sometimes they "re Just like misund-2rstanding, misenng . 82 00 : 08 : 39 . 059 --> 00 : 08 : 43 . 029
Roxanne Wilson : or Just filling in the blanks when they don ' t hear certain things .
83 00 : 08 : 43 . 809 --> 00 : 08 : 49 . 289
Roxanne Wilson : So we do p l an on doing a communi ty input sessi on again on June 10th to update .
84 00 : 08 : 49 . 339 --> 00:08 : 52 . 1 39
Roxanne Wilson : But I really would like for us t o have 85 00 : 08 : 52 . 829 --> 00 : 09 : 08 . 51 9
Roxanne Wilson : this part done so . We can present it to the community . I hate going to the community empty handed . It just causes more of that type of narrative, you know, like , we don ' t know what ' s going on . And it 's li ke , yeah, we don 't know what 's going on , e ither . 86 00 : 09 : 08 . 520 --> 00 : 09 : 29 . 230
Matt Orbach , City of Watsonville : Well , when you say so when you say clone I think that ' s where you know Joey and I have taken in last meeti~ brought up , you know, up t o this point it ' s been a very piecemeal siloed approach to reviewing this from the city' s perspec ive . This is not gonna m' l I un
186
Attachment 5
10 of 266
be done until we get a resubmit, all f ormal resubmittal that we can review with all the city departments t o ensure
87 00 : 09 : 29 . 230 - - > 00 : 09 : 58 . 231
Matt Orbach , City of Watsonville : that this complies with . You know all the public work s tandards, the building codes , you know . It ' s it's real ly not much p lanning related . But you know, we need to do that full review from a ll city departments before we c an deem this complete . And you know I I 'm not probabl y seeing that happening before June 10 . th At this p oint given, you l:now what I heard at the last meeting about , you know, not even knowing which exact modular units you were gonna use , and having not looked at, you know, fire access and things like that . I mean , there ' s 88 00 : 09 : 59 . 070 --> 00 : 10 : 00 . 39 9
Matt Orbach, City of Watsonville : It seems like .
89 00 : 10 : 00 . 5 60 --> 00 : 10 : 00 . 8 79
Roxanne Wilson : To do ?
90 00 : 10 : 00 . 880 --> 00 : 10 : 01 . 230
Matt Or bach, Ci ty of Watsonville : Really away .
91 00 : 1 0 : 0 1 . 640 --> 00 : 10 : 02 . 050
Matt Or bach , City of Watsonville : So I.
92 00 : 10 : 02 . 050 --> 00 : 10 : 10 . 259
Marissa Brown : I do want t o talk abou t fire a ccess. Sorry I was l ate , and I realized we don ' t have ticket anymo r e . Song. We had 93 00 : 10 : 10 . 470 --> 00 : 10 : 12 . 72 0
Marissa Brown : an initial meeting wi t h
94 00 :10 : 13 . 590 --> 00 : 10 : 20 . 249
Marissa Brown: wi th most of this group , and that was one of the 1st things on our list was discussing fire access.
95 00 : 10 : 20 . 730 --> 00 : 10 : 25 . 059
Marissa Brown : because what we were p resent ed with was an exi sting site that had
96 00 : 10 : 25 . 200 --> 00 : 10 : 27 . 720
Marissa Brown : a fire access land that did not meet
97 187
Attachment 5
11 of 266