Agenda packet — Watsonville City Council, March 11, 2025 (part 4 of 6)

18.0 SIGNATURE PAGE:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CHSP and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.:

By:

Maria Elena de la Garza, CEO
Date:

Coalition of Homeless Services Providers:

By:

Katrina McKenzie, Executive Director
Date:

Page 836 of 1242 ends

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF SERVICES/PAYMENT PROVISIONS

COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, INC SANTA CRUZ A. TOTAL FUNDING: $509,982.75 HHAP 4
$509,982.75 TOTAL
B. CONTRACT TERM: July 01, 2024 to June 30, 2025
C. CONTACT INFORMATION:

Contractor Monitor: Coalition of Homeless Services
Providers Nykole Sakihara-Soper,
Deputy Director 1123 Fremont Blvd.,
Suite D, Seaside, CA 93955
Phone: (831) 883-3080 Fax: (831) 883-3085
[email protected]
Contractor Information: Maria Elena de la Garza, Chief Executive Officer Community Action Board of Santa
Cruz County, Inc 406 Main Street
Suite 207 Watsonville, CA 95076
Phone: ( 831)-763-2147 Fax: (831) 724-3447
[email protected]
Location of Services: Westview Presbyterian Church
118 1st St. Watsonville, CA
95076
D. CONTRACT AWARD INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR UEI Number: N/A
Date of Leadership Council Approval: May 22, 2024
CFDA Passthrough Information and Dollar Amount: Homeless Housing Assistance & Prevention (HHAP) Funds (Round 4)
Federal Award Description: N/A
Research and Development: No
Maximum Allowable Indirect Cost Rate: 10%
E. Purpose:

This project will operate 24-hr., seven days a week (including holidays) interim emergency housing and low-barrier navigation center that will create 34 new interim housing beds. Beds are designated to meet needs of those living on the Parjaro River levee that spans the boarder of the two counties where at least 50% of those in the encampment are of Monterey County.

Page 837 of 1242 ends

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF SERVICES/PAYMENT PROVISIONS
F. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
CONTRACTOR shall provide services and staff, and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work, as set forth below:

F.1 CONTRACTOR shall staff and operate the Recurso de Fuerza Village (RdF Village), a 24- hr., seven days a week (including holidays) interim emergency housing and low-barrier navigation center, located at Westview Presbyterian Church, utilizing a Housing First, trauma- informed, harm-reduction approach for people experiencing homelessness along the Pajaro River.

F.1.a. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that services are provided within Evidence-Based Best Practices and in compliance with the core components of Housing First, as described in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8255, subdivision (b).

Individuals and families assisted with these funds must not be required to receive treatment or perform any other prerequisite activities as a condition for receiving shelter, housing, or other services for which these funds are used.

F.2 CONTRACTOR guarantees CHSP its officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors (Parties) shall have the right to enter RdF Village during normal business hours to conduct work, inspections, and investigations in accordance with this Agreement. This provision also includes allowing visits related to the project and film, tape, photograph, interview, and otherwise documentation of operations during normal business hours and with reasonable advance notice. All Parties shall comply with the RdF Village program terms during any visit.

F.3 CONTRACTOR shall utilize its local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to track Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention-4 (HHAP 4 funded projects, services and clients served. Grantee will ensure that HMIS data are collected in accordance with applicable laws and in such a way as to identify individual projects, services, and clients that are supported by HHAP -4 funding (e.g., by creating appropriate HHAP-4 specific funding sources and project codes in HMIS).

F.4 CONTRACTOR shall participate in and provide data elements, including , but no limited to, health information, in a manner consistent with federal law, to the statewide Homeless Management Information System ( known as the Homeless Data Integration System or “HDIS”), in accordance with the existing Data Use Agreement entered with the Council, if any, and as required by Health and Safety Code section 50220.6. Any information provided to, or maintained within the statewide Homeless Management Information System shall not be subject to public inspection or disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter

3.5 ( commencing with Section 6250) if Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).

F.5 CONTRACTOR agrees that Enhanced Care Management (ECM) may be incorporated into their services plan for RdF Village.

F.6 All activities regarding CONTRACTOR budget, timeline, scope of work and payment provisions/invoicing must be authorized and approved by CSHP.

F.7 CONTRACTOR develops operational policies and procedures for shelter management, including intake, case management, and service provision.

F.8 CONTRACTOR shall recruit and train staff members responsible for shelter management, and resident support.

F.9 CONTRACTOR shall ensure that services are provided within Evidence-Based Best Practices and in compliance with the core components of Housing First, as described in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8255, subdivision (b). Individuals assisted with

Page 838 of 1242 ends

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF SERVICES/PAYMENT PROVISIONS
HHAP funds must not be required to receive treatment or perform any other prerequisite activities as a condition for receiving shelter, housing, or other services for which these funds are used.

F.10 CONTRACTOR shall ensure that CDC guidelines regarding mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, particularly regarding operating a congregate shelter facility, are adhered to, and also includes COVID-19 safety protocols and will obtain and utilize Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as gloves, gowns, goggles, face shields, and face masks for staff and clients as needed.

F.11 CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all services and program documents are provided in the Spanish language at minimum and when other languages are needed utilize any resources necessary to accommodate.

F.12 CONTRACTOR shall provide incontinence and feminine hygiene products, including, but not limited to, sanitary napkins, tampons, and panty liners, to guests as needed, free of charge. Obligation to satisfy this requirement is subject to the availability of funds however CONTRACTOR shall make attempts to coordinate or request donations when funds are not available and collect data on the cost, demand, and utilization to help inform future resources to support this service.

F.13 CONTRACTOR shall ensure the program is accessible and welcoming to each of the following clients: residents with mental illness and/or disabilities, LGBTQ+, Minors, and survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking.

F.14 CONTRACTOR shall ensure services are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.

F.15 CONTRACTOR and its contractors, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, compliance with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 Cal. GOV Code § 8350.

G. SERVICE GOALS, OUTCOMES AND DATA REQUIREMENTS
G.1 SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to meet the following outcomes as outlined in their HHAP application including:

G.1.a. Provide safe and secure shelter for up to 34 unduplicated individuals at any given time experiencing homelessness.

G.1.b. Offer a supportive and inclusive living environment that promotes dignity, respect, and self-sustainability.

G.1.c. Facilitate access to essential services, including healthcare, mental health support, substance abuse treatment, employment assistance, and educational opportunities.

G.1.d. Provide comprehensive case management and support services to help program participants transition towards stable housing and increased self-sufficiency.

G.1.e. Foster community engagement and collaboration to address the needs of shelter residents.

G.1.f. 60% of individuals served by Recurso de Fuerza will secure permanent housing in a median time frame of 180 days.

G.1.g. 25% of participants at RdF Village will increase their income.

G.1.h. 90% or greater of participants at RdF Village will be satisfied with the program, measured via satisfaction surveys administered twice a year.

G.2 CONTRACTOR agrees to collaborate with CHSP to develop a data transfer process that

Page 839 of 1242 ends

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF SERVICES/PAYMENT PROVISIONS
ensures compliance with AB977 for all parties. This process will facilitate the transfer of data from CA508 to CA506.

G.2.a. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that the CHSP reserves the right to terminate this agreement if data is not collected in accordance with CA506 data standards.

G.2.b. CONTRACTOR agrees to cooperate fully with the CHSP in all matters related to data collection, management, and oversight to ensure compliance with State requirements.

G.2.c. CONTRACTOR shall participate in and provide data elements, including, but not limited to, health information in a manner consistent with federal law, to the statewide Homeless Management Information System (known as the Homeless Data Integration System or HDIS”), as required by Health and Safety Code section 50220.6. Any health information provided to, or maintained within, the statewide Homeless Management Information System shall not be subject to public inspection or disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter

3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).

H. REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS AND SUBMISSION
H.1 CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE QUARTERLY SERVICE OUTCOMES REPORT: CONTRACTOR shall submit quarterly CAPER reports and include a short narrative of program outcomes and impact for that quarterly period. Program metrics include:

H.1.1 Number of active unduplicated program participants along with their program Start Date and Program End Date.

H.1.2 Number of barriers removed for individuals, and number of referrals to additional supportive services
H.1.3 Monthly and Quarterly reports shall be submitted to the Contract Monitor as listed in Section C.

H.2 CONTRACTOR shall provide, upon request, information and documentation on service delivery models developed with grant funds. This includes any necessary materials to study the program or replicate it for implementation across the state of California.

H.3 CONTRACTOR shall maintain adequate records to support the reported statistics regarding beneficiary characteristics and services provided under the HHAP-4 funding.

H.3.a. Records demonstrating that funded activities meet the objectives of the HHAP -4 program.

H.3.b. Records are required to determine the eligibility of activities.

H.4 CONTRACTOR shall participate in annual contract monitoring conducted by CHSP staff to review fiscal integrity, customer service, business management, and service delivery and may include an on-site visit. Completion of this measure shall be documented through the issuance of a contract monitoring report.

Page 840 of 1242 ends

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF SERVICES/PAYMENT PROVISIONS
H.5 CHSP shall lead CONTRACTORS annual monitoring visits to review fiscal integrity, customer service, business management, and service delivery and may include an on-site visit. Completion of this measure shall be documented through the issuance of a contract monitoring report, to be provided by CHSP.

I. ADDITIONAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS - TIMELINE & MILESTONES I.1 SUBCONTRACTOR will follow the following timeline with set milestones:

Start Date
End Date
Milestone Accomplished
July 2024 September 2024 Hire staff for RdF Village Operations July 2024 October 2024 Begin development of operational policies and procedures for RdF Village shelter management, including intake,
case management, and service provisions.

August 2024 October 2024 Participate in coordinated outreach efforts facilitated by the County of Monterey to provide linkages to
encampment occupants to relevant services, as necessary.

October 2024 November 2024 Create a by-names list and identify inaugural participants of the RdF Village.

October 2024 December 2024 Negotiate lease with the Church for RdF Village to expire June 30, 2026.

November 2024 December 2025 Prepare RdF Village for occupancy.

December 2024 June 2026 60% of participants of the program will secure permanent housing in a median time frame of 180
days.
25% of participants will increase their income.
90% or greater of participants will be satisfied
with the program.

J. PAYMENT PROVISIONS
J.1 CHSP shall pay CONTRACTOR per the terms set forth in the Standard Agreement J.2 PAYMENT SUMMARY
J.2.1 The maximum amount payable by CHSP to CONTRACTOR under the term of this Agreement shall not exceed five hundred nine thousand,

Page 841 of 1242 ends

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF SERVICES/PAYMENT PROVISIONS
nine hundred eighty-two dollars and seventy-five cents ($509,982.75) as set forth in Exhibit B, Budget.

K. INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS & SUBMISSION
K.1 CONTRACTOR shall submit original signed invoices with supportive documentation to CHSP setting forth the amount claimed by the 10th day of the month following the month in which services were performed.

K.2 The invoice shall be submitted through CHSP’s Grant Management Software Submittable. Onboarding and training will be facilitated by the Grants Management Team.

K.2.1 The final invoice for close out is due no later than the 10th of July2027 K.2.2 All funds must be exhausted by CONTRACTOR by June 30, 2027 (End of Exhibit A)

Page 842 of 1242 ends

HOMELESS HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM

GRANT SUBRECIPIENT BUDGET
Community Action Board of
Santa Cruz County
EXHIBIT B: Project Budget – Services – Interim Shelter Project [TO BE COMPLETED BY SUBRECIPIENT BASED ON APPLICATION AND ANY BUDGET CHANGES REQUESTED BY LC]
Project Line Item
Requested HHAP
Funding
PERSONNEL SERVICES Specify
Position, Salary, and FTE below. Add
rows as needed:

Director of Programs Impact .0312 FTE $6,241.56
Case Manager .5 FTE $60,876.61
Case Manager .5 FTE $53,164.61
Fringe Benefits $34,889.23

SUBTOTAL - PERSONNEL

SERVICES
$155,172.01
Other Program Costs
Utilities $96,000.00
Surveillance $10,000.00
Liability and Property Insurance $27,000.00
Client Pet services $9,948.64
Other Direct Financial
Assistance/Ancillary
$18,000.00
Security Contracting $135,000.00
Maintenance $12,500.00
10% Indirect $46,362.10
SUBTOTAL –OTHER PROGRAM
COSTS $354,810.74
TOTAL PROJECT COST $509,982.75

Page 843 of 1242 ends

Page 844 of 1242 ends

LAW OFFICES
William R. Seligmann 333 Church Street, Suite A Mailing Address:

Santa Cruz, California 95060
Telephone: (831) 423-8383 PO Box 481
Fax: (831) 438-0104 Santa Cruz, California 95061
July 29, 2024
Silicon Valley Office:
(408) 356-1950
Watsonville City Council
275 Main St., Suite 400 (4th Floor)
Watsonville, CA 95076
[email protected]
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.

Page 845 of 1242 ends

2 | 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 § 14-17.1101(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.

Page 846 of 1242 ends

3 | 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.

Sincerely,
William R. Seligmann
William R. Seligmann
cc: email only:

City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Executive Presbyter

Page 847 of 1242 ends

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).

Page 848 of 1242 ends

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.

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.

Page 849 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 850 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 851 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 852 of 1242 ends

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.

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.

Page 853 of 1242 ends

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).

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.

Page 854 of 1242 ends

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.

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.

Page 855 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 856 of 1242 ends

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.

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.

Page 857 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 858 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 859 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 860 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 861 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 862 of 1242 ends

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.

Page 863 of 1242 ends

Outlook
Public Comment: Agenda Item 4.a of December 3, 2024 Watsonville Planning Commission Meeting From Marta Bulaich <[email protected]>
Date Tue 12/03/2024 4:02 PM
To Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc CDD <[email protected]>
Members of the Commission,
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
FINAL 2024 12 03 Tiny Village_ Collection of Dat…
--
Marta J. Bulaich
+1 415 816 1665
@martahari
12/3/24, 4:36 PM Mail - Celia Castro - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADFhNzdjZTdlLWMwMzItNDUyNS1iMWRmLTA4ZDg4MzM4MGQ0OQAQAM5fyMyN0ANJubK0RuiO… 1/1 Public Comment #25: Item 4.a.

Page 864 of 1242 ends

Page 1 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
Agenda Report
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, December 3, 2024
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MEEK

INTERIM ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ORBACH
SUBJECT: APPEAL (#PP2024-7954) OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL

OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT FOR A LOW-BARRIER
NAVIGATION CENTER (#PP2023-6297) LOCATED AT 118 1st
STREET, 5 CHERRY COURT, AND 120 1ST STREET (APN: 017-172- 32, 31, & 35)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends Planning Commission deny the appeal (#PP2024-7954) and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of an Administrative Review Permit for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) and upholding approval by Zoning Administrator of Administrative Review Permit and finding the project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15268.

SUMMARY:

The item before the Commission is the appeal of a Zoning Administrator determination approving a Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) at 118 1st Street.

Under the applicable statutory provisions, a LBNC is a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses and the City is required to permit a LBNC if it meets the following specified requirements:

Access to permanent housing.

Use of a coordinated entry system.

Use of Housing First according to Welfare and Institutions Code section 8255.

It has a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit destination through the local Homeless Management Information System as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (Government Code Section 65662.)
BACKGROUND:

Page 865 of 1242 ends

Page 2 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
In June 2023, the County of Monterey received a notice of award from the State of California for their Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) grant application in the requested amount of $7,986,354 to provide funding for the Recurso de Fuerza Village program. The program includes development of 34-individual, non-congregate, low barrier, service rich shelter beds and provision of housing navigation and supportive services to people living along the Pajaro River (Attachment 2).

On October 17, 2023, the County of Monterey, applicant, on behalf of Westview Presbyterian Church, property owner, submitted an application (#PP2023-6297) for a Zoning Clearance/Administrative Review Permit (ARP) for a housing navigation center located at 5 Cherry Court (Attachment 3).

On November 29, 2023, the City of Watsonville provided the applicant with a guidance letter outlining the additional information required for permit processing based on the understanding that the project was an emergency shelter that would be subject to Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC) Chapter 14-43 (Attachment 4).

Between December 2023 and July 2024, Principal Planner Matt Orbach and Building Official identify and discuss applicable building code and site and building design issues. Through these Government Code § 65582(d) and Health and Safety Code § 50801(e). homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. The - the definition of a low-barrier navigation center (LBNC) as defined in Government Code §65660(a) -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.

On July 11, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted plans for ARP #PP2023-6297 that showed the proposed LBNC located on the parcel at 118 1st Street rather than 5 Cherry Court.

On July 26, 2024, the City of Watsonville provided the applicant with a response to the July 11 resubmittal requesting an amended Zoning Clearance/Administrative Review Permit application including an updated scope of work for the proposed project identifying the specific parcels where all project elements (LBNC, parking, fire access, etc.) would be located as well as a detailed description of the proposed use for each of the parcels and confirmation of whether the 14-18.331 (Attachment 5).

On August 23, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted project plans with an amended Zoning Clearance/Administrative Review Permit application and an amended memorandum (Attachments 6 & 7).

Page 866 of 1242 ends

Page 3 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
On September 4, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted an amended version of the memorandum that was submitted with the amended Zoning Clearance/Administrative Review Permit application on August 23, 2024. The amended memo removed a paragraph on page two statin
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)
On September 20, 2024, the Zoning Administrator determined that ARP #PP2023-6297 for a LBNC was complete and approved the permit (Attachment 9). The determination letter included comments and requests for additional information that should be included with the building permit application submittal.

On October 2, 2024, City staff received an appeal application (#PP2024-7954) for the Zoning Administrator approval of ARP #PP2023-6297 (Attachment 10).

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision on an appeal of a decision of a Zoning Administrator approval is an adjudicative or quasi-judicial decision. Adjudicative or quasi-judicial decisions apply already adopted policies or standards to individual cases. Adjudicative/quasi-judicial decisions are based on evidence and must always be supported by findings for approval or denial that are supported by substantial evidence.

PROCESS
Administrative Review Permit
The purpose of the Administrative Review Permit (ARP) is to assure, prior to the establishment of an otherwise principally permitted use within an existing facility or new construction not requiring Design Review, that the provision of the Watsonville Municipal Code and other appropriate State and local regulations are met (WMC § 14-12.300). An ARP can be approved over the counter where the Zoning Administrator is the final decision-maker.

APPEALS
Zoning Administrator
Appeals of the decisions of the Zoning Administrator, or any other administrative official or advisory body in taking any of the actions authorized by this title shall be made to the Planning Commission through its Secretary, pursuant to the process described in WMC Chapter 14-10 Part 11: Appeals. Per WMC § 14-10.1106(a), the Planning Commission, at the conclusion of the hearing, may sustain, modify, or overrule the action of the Zoning Administrator. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless an appeal to the City Council is filed pursuant to WMC § 14-

10.1101. Unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission, the hearing shall not be d in the notice of appeal. Therefore, the
Planning Commission is limited to consideration of the four criteria related to approval of lowPage 867 of 1242 Attachment 20: Page 3 of 17

Page 4 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
barrier navigation centers located in Government Code § 65662, which are described in the discussion section below.

Planning Commission
action taken by the Planning Commission was erroneously taken and may sustain, modify, or overturned on appeal, the City Council must find that the action taken by the Planning Commission was erroneous and inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning District regulations that regulate the proposed action (WMC §14-10.1106).

DISCUSSION:

Existing Site
The project site includes three parcels:

1. 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32)

2. 5 Cherry Court (APN: 017-172-31)

3. 120 1st Street (APN: 017-172-35)
All three parcels are designated Downtown Central Core on the General Plan Land Use Map and are located within the Downtown Core zoning district. The Downtown Core zoning district is a mixed-use zone in which multifamily residential uses are principally permitted.

The main site location, 118 1st Street, is occupied by the Westview Presbyterian Church. The church is the property owner of all three parcels and the project applicant. The 5 Cherry Court parcel includes a large portion of the church parking lot, the ingress driveway from 1st Street, a single-family home, and the full length of Cherry Court. The 120 1st Street parcel includes only a small portion of the front of the parking lot and the egress driveway to CA-129. Cherry Court and the single-family residence are separated from the rest of the church parking lot by a chain link fence. The rear corner of the 5 Cherry Court parcel is unpaved and vacant.

Page 868 of 1242 ends

Page 5 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
FIGURE 2 Aerial view of the project site and surrounding area Source: Santa Cruz County GIS, 2020 Proposed Project
The proposed project involves construction of a 34-bed low-barrier navigation center1 to be
developed by Dignity Moves and the Counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz, in partnership with the site property owner, Westview Presbyterian Church.

The project is designed to be a service-enriched shelter that helps persons experiencing homelessness connect with resources that lead to permanent housing. The project will consist of 26 single bed units, 2 double units (4 beds), and 2 separated Americans 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 1 Per Government Code § 65660(a), a low-barrier navigation center is 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.

Page 869 of 1242 ends

Page 6 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
fenced facility with parking and utility/emergency vehicular access, to be built on three parcels owned by Westview Presbyterian Church.

The project plans are included as Attachment 1.

The project would offer services to connect people to permanent housing through a defined service plan that details services and staffing. The project incorporates low-barrier access -site staff, provisions for pets, storage of
personal belongings, and privacy. The Housing First requirements were adopted by the State of California and apply to programs receiving funding from ERF grants. Under the Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of C
System (HMIS) for entering and storing information as to client stays, demographics, income, and exit destination, participate in the local Coordinated Entry System, and comply with Chapter

6.5 or Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Assembly Bill 101/Government Code § 65660-65668
Communities across California continue to confront ever-increasing challenges posed by a scarcity of housing, particularly affordable housing. The State Legislature has responded to the housing shortage by passing and amending laws, particularly in recent years, designed to facilitate, expedite, and reduce constraints on residential development, including laws that pertain to emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and now low-barrier navigation centers.

Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101) was signed into law in 2019. According to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, it provided statutory changes necessary to enact the housing and homelessness-related provisions of the Budget Act of 2019, including streamlining the approval of low-barrier navigation centers.

AB 101 requires a Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) to be a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements, including:

Access to permanent housing.

Use of a coordinated entry system (i.e., Homeless Management Information System).

Use of Housing First according to Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 8255 (Gov. Code § 65660).

Per Government Code § 65583.2(i)
may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary

Page 870 of 1242 ends

Page 7 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
local government review or ap
California Environmental Quality Act.

The provisions under AB 101 are in addition to current planning and zoning law regarding approval for emergency shelters and transitional and by right permanent supportive housing.

AB 101 applies to all cities and counties, including charter cities and counties.

AB 101 added Article 12 Low Barrier Navigation Centers, comprising section 65660-65668, to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. Government Code § 65660(a) defines -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.

Per WIC § 8255(d) -based model that uses housing as a
tool, rather than a reward, for recovery and that centers on providing or connecting homeless people to permanent housing as quickly as possible. Housing First providers offer services as needed and requested on a voluntary basis and that do not make housing contingent on participation in services.
to:

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 mor than two beds, or private rooms (Gov. Code § 65660(a)).

Per Government Code § 65662, a LBNC 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 section and a local jurisdiction shall permit a LBNC development if 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 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

Page 871 of 1242 ends

Page 8 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
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 Management Information System as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Per Government Code § 65664, within 30 days of receipt of an application for a LBNC is complete pursuant to Section 65943. The public agenc whether the application includes the information required by Government Code § 65662 above.

If the application is incomplete, the lead agency shall provide the applicant with a written determination specifying those parts of the application which are incomplete and indicating the manner in which they can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. Within 60 days of receipt of a completed application for a LBNC development, the local jurisdiction shall act upon its review of the application.

Administrative Review Permit
Per WMC § 14-12.300, the purpose of the Administrative Review Permit is to assure, prior to establishment of an otherwise principally permitted use (i.e. use by right) within an existing facility or new construction not requiring Design Review, that the provisions of the zoning code and other appropriate State and local regulations are met. In this case, no provisions of the zoning code apply to the proposed LBNC project. However, because the project involves a LBNC and the site is zoned for mixed use, the project qualifies for and was reviewed for compliance with the requirements of Government Code § 65662. Analysis with supportive evidence is below. a) It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.

Supportive Evidence: The project will comply with the County of Monterey shelter/navigation center operational standards as approved by the Monterey County Continuum of Care (CoC). Those standards include the Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benit
(Attachments
13 & 14). Services staffing will be provided by several agencies, including CSUMB Community Health Engagement (CHE), HomeFirst, and Community Action Board (CAB) (Attachment 2).
b) It is linked to a coordinated entry system, so that staff in the interim facility or staff who colocate in the facility may conduct assessments and provide services to connect people oordinated
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

Page 872 of 1242 ends

Page 9 of 13 ends

Supportive Evidence: The LBNC will participate in the local Coordinated Entry System as required by the Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of Care c) It complies with Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC).

Supportive Evidence: Housing First requirements apply to all programs receiving Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) grants. The project was awarded $7,986,354 in ERF grant funding, so the LBNC will comply with Chapter 6.5 of Division 8 of the WIC. In addition, Housing First requirements are required by the Lead Me Home Monterey and 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 as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Supportive Evidence: The Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum programs, including LBNCs, to enter participant data into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) managed by the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers will enter complete and accurate information into HMIS in a timely manner for all participants. Participant information, including universal data elements and programspecific data elements, will be accurate, complete, and current.

On September 20, 2024, based on the supportive evidence above, the Zoning Administrator approved ARP #PP2024-7954 (Attachment 9).

APPEAL
On October 2, 2024, City staff received an appeal application (PP2024-7954) from Catalina approval of ARP #PP2023-6297 (Attachment 10). The appellant contends that the approval was analysis.

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

Page 873 of 1242 ends

Page 10 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
#2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.

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 #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.

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 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.

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.

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 Administrato #2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.

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 proval of ARP
#2023-6297. Staff also disagrees with this characterization.

Page 874 of 1242 ends

Page 11 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx

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.

Staff Analysis Per Government Code § 65583.2(i)
use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no special use permit may be required by the City as a predicating step for entitlement of the project.

9. Staff improperly failed to respond to the legal analysis presented by the neighborhood attorney.

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.

Page 875 of 1242 ends

Page 12 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
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.

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. 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.

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. APPLICANT RESPONSE TO APPEAL
On October 10, 2024, City staff received a response to appeal application PP2024-7954 for ARP #PP2023-6297 from the County of Monterey Office of the County Counsel (Attachment 11). The Monterey County Counsel holds that the City lacks authority to entertain a discretionary appeal on this ministerial project because, as long as the statutory requirements for a LBNC are met, the City must approve the project.

The appeal was submitted properly, in compliance with all requirements listed in WMC Chapter 14-10 Part 11: Appeals. As such, the City is providing the applicant with their due process rights by accepting and considering the appeal.

HCD Letter of Support and Technical Assistance
On Tuesday, November 19, 2024, City staff received a letter of support and technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) related to the appeal (#PP2024-7954) of ARP #PP2023-6297. HCD is the state agency charged with administering, interpreting, and enforcing state housing law in California. The letter includes an overview of applicable state housing laws and states that the City acted appropriately in approving the Project ministerially. The letter concludes by reminding the City that, pursuant to

Page 876 of 1242 ends

Page 13 of 13 ends

11/27/2024 4:56:38 PM
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16563435016\16563435016,,,118 1st Street - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PP2023- 6297.docx
Government Code § 65585(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 (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j)(9)) (Attachment 12).

CEQA:

Approval of the Administrative Review Permit is statutorily exempt as a ministerial use from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268. Government Code § 65660 provides for Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) and specifies that an LBNC is a use by right, which has the same definition used in Government Code § Section 65583.2(i) that states local government review may not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a Code.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

If the Planning Commission
#2023-6297 was erroneous and inconsistent with the intent of Government Code § 65662, the Planning Commission could uphold Appeal #PP2024-7954 and direct staff to return with a resolution upholding the appeal. This action could be appealed to the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 118 1st Street Final Plan Set

2. County of Monterey ERF Grant Application

3. ARP Application #PP2023-6297 10.17.2023

4. Guidance Letter for ARP #PP2023-6297 11.29.2023

5. City Response to Memo Regarding Guidance Letter 07.26.2024

6. Amended ARP Application #PP2023-6297 08.23.2024

7. Amended ARP Application Memo 08.23.2024

8. Updated Amended ARP Application Memo 09.04.2024

9. Zoning Administrator Determination Letter 09.20.2024

10. Appeal Application #PP2024-7954 10.02.2024

11. Monterey County Counsel Response to Appeal #PP2024-7954 10.10.2024

12. HCD Letter of Support and Technical Assistance 11.19.2024

13. Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of Care Operational Standards for Emergency Shelters

14. County of Monterey Homeless Services Good Neighbor Protocol

Page 877 of 1242 ends

1 of 4
4912-5418-9569 v1
RESOLUTION NO. _____ - 24 (PC)

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (PP2024-7954)

OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE

REVIEW PERMIT FOR A LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER
(#PP2023-6297) LOCATED AT 118 1st STREET, 5 CHERRY COURT, AND 120 1ST STREET (APNs: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) AND UPHOLDING

APPROVAL BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REVIEW PERMIT AND FINDING PROJECT EXEMPT FROM REVIEW

UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15268
WHEREAS, the subject parcels are located at 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32), 5 Cherry Court (APN: 017-172-31), and 120 1st Street (APN: 017-172-35) ; and
WHEREAS, the main site location, 118 1st Street, is occupied by the Westview Presbyterian Church, which owns all three subject parcels; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is designated Downtown Central Core on the General Plan Land Use Map and is located within the Downtown Core zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Core zoning district is a mixed-use zone in which multifamily residential uses are principally permitted; and WHEREAS, in June 2023, the County of Monterey received a notice of award from the State of California for their Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) grant application in the requested amount of $7,986,354 to provide funding for the Recurso de Fuerza Village program which includes development of 34-individual, non-congregate, low barrier, service rich shelter beds and provision of housing navigation and supportive services to people living along the Pajaro River; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, the County of Monterey, applicant, on behalf of Westview Presbyterian Church, property owner, submitted an application (#PP2023-

Page 878 of 1242 ends

2 of 4
4912-5418-9569 v1
6297) for a Zoning Clearance/Administrative Review Permit (ARP) for a housing navigation center located at 5 Cherry Court; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2023, the City of Watsonville provided the applicant with a guidance letter outlining the additional information required for permit processing based on the understanding that the project was an emergency shelter that would be subject to Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC) Chapter 14-43; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted plans for ARP #PP2023-6297 that showed the proposed low barrier navigation center (LBNC) located on the parcel at 118 1st Street rather than 5 Cherry Court; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2024, the City of Watsonville provided the applicant with a response to the July 11 resubmittal requesting an amended ARP application including an updated scope of work for the proposed project identifying the specific parcels where all project elements (LBNC, parking, fire access, etc.) would be located as well as a detailed description of the proposed use for each of the parcels and confirmation of in WMC Section 14-18.331; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted project plans with an amended ARP application and an amended memorandum; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted an amended version of the memorandum that was submitted with the amended ARP application on August 23, 2024. The amended memo removed a paragraph on page two paragraph stating that the project
will provide unsheltered individuals living along the Pajaro River with low barrier access

Page 879 of 1242 ends

3 of 4
4912-5418-9569 v1
to temporary living facilities, housing navigation and supportive services as defined in California Government Code § 65660 (2023)
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2024, the Zoning Administrator determined that ARP #PP2023-6297 for a LBNC was complete and approved the permit (Attachment 9).

The determination letter included comments and requests for additional information that should be included with the building permit application submittal; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2024, City staff received an appeal application (#PP2024-7954) for the Zoning Administrator approval of ARP #PP2023-6297; and WHEREAS, notice of time and place of the hearing to consider Appeal #PP2024- 7954 was given at the time and in the manner prescribed by the WMC; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all written and verbal evidence regarding Appeal #PP2024-7954 of Zoning Administrator approval of an ARP for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street, 5 Cherry Court, and 120 1st Street (APNs: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) and has made the finding that the Zoning Administrator approval of ARP #PP2023-6297 was correct because the project complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65662 related to low-barrier navigation centers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville, California, as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution as findings of the Planning Commission.

Section 2. Approval of #PP2023-6297 is statutorily exempt as a ministerial use from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268. Government Code § 65660 provides for Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) and specifies that an LBNC is a use by right, which has the

Page 880 of 1242 ends

4 of 4
4912-5418-9569 v1
same definition used in Government Code § Section 65583.2(i) that states local government review may not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a
13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville does hereby deny Appeal #PP2024-7954 of Zoning Administrator approval of an Administrative Review Permit for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street (APN:
017-172-32, 31, & 35) on the basis that the project meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65662 he Administrative
Review Permit.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville, California, held on the 3rd day of December 2024, by Commissioner_________________, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Commissioner__________________, was upon roll call, carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioners:

Noes: Commissioners:

Absent: Commissioners:
_________________________________ _______________________________ Justin Meek, Secretary Ed Acosta, Chairperson Planning Commission Planning Commission

Page 881 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

1 M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE
December 3, 2024 6:00 PM
In accordance with City policy, all Planning Commission meetings are recorded on audio and video in their entirety and are available for review in the Community Development Department (CDD). These minutes are a summary of the action taken.

1. ROLL CALL
Vice-Chair Peter Radin, and Commissioners Lucy Rojas, Brando Sencion, Vanessa Meldahl, and Jennifer Veitch-Olson were present. Commissioner Daniel Dodge arrived late (6:03 PM) and Chair Ed Acosta was absent.

A. MOTION TO EXCUSE ABSENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS (IF ANY) MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Veitch-Olson, seconded by Commissioner Sencion, and carried by the following vote to excuse absent Chair Acosta:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Radin, Rojas, Sencion, Meldahl, Veitch-Olson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Acosta, Dodge
(Commissioner Dodge arrived at 6:03pm, after roll call to excuse absent commissioners.)
Staff members present were Interim Community Development Director Justin Meek, Interim Assistant Community Development Director Matt Orbach, Assistant City Attorney Mary Wagner (arrived at 6:37 PM), Administrative Analyst Elena Ortiz, Executive Assistant Celia Castro, Permit Technician Rob Manansala, and City Interpreter Carlos Landaverry.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Meldahl led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. PRESENTATIONS & ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSION

Page 882 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

2 None

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (PP2024-7954) OF

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT FOR A LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER (#PP2023-6297) LOCATED AT 118 1st STREET, 5 CHERRY COURT, AND 120 1ST STREET (APNs: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) AND UPHOLDING APPROVAL BY ZONING

ADMINISTRATOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT AND FINDING

PROJECT EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15268 Commissioner Veitch-Olson shared a comment regarding the item and recused herself at 6:07 PM, prior to the Staff Report.
1) Staff Report
Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach gave the presentation. 2) Planning Commission Clarifying & Technical Questions Commissioner Sencion requested clarification regarding the statement made in failure to request a Special Use Permit
(SUP) for the church as a prerequisite for the project. In answering, Interim Asst.

Community Development Director Orbach clarified that the church is not required to get a SUP before the City can approve a low-barrier navigation center on the site.

Commissioner Rojas asked staff to go through the Appeal Process statements with clarification.

In addition to Commissioner Rojas request, Vice Chair Radin asked to have staff pause after each line and allow Commissioners to ask clarifying and technical questions.

Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach proceeded with clarifying each line in the Appeal Process.

Line 1 in the Appeal Process:

Vice Chair Radin asked what the working definition is for the ntitlement review process. In answering, Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach shared a step by step description of the entitlement review process. He also clarified the submittal of the allegations do not affect the timeline of the entitlement review process.

Page 883 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

3 Line 2 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 3 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 4 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 5 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 6 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 7 in the Appeal Process:

Commissioner Rojas inquired if there is an existing Public Records Request. In answering, Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach clarified that the Public Records Requests are done through a different Department.

In further clarification, Interim Community Development Director Meek shared that
shared what the process is for a Public Records Request.

Commissioner Rojas inquired if there is an appeal or grievance process regarding the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for this matter. Interim Community Development Director Meek answered he is not certain, however, the City is required to respond within a reasonable timeframe and strive to do so.

Commissioner Rojas further inquired if the Planning Commission could make a request for a process to be established regarding complaints about a Public Records Request. Interim Community Development Director Meek responded by holding the question for when the Assistant City Attorney Wagner arrives.

Assistant City Attorney Wagner arrived to the meeting at 6:37 PM. Assistant City Attorney Wagner apologized for being late and moved forward to answering Commissioner Rojas question. She clarified that the Public Records Requests were provided and informed the Commission that CPRA has a an appeal process that can be followed.

Commissioner Rojas requested that the information related to the appeal process for CPRA be provided to the appellant.

Line 8 in the Appeal Process:

Vice Chair Radin shared a comment regarding the confusion between a change in church use and a change in church property.

Page 884 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

4 Line 9 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 10 in the Appeal Process:

Vice Chair Radin inquired if the appellant is claiming the project is an emergency shelter. Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach clarified that is correct, and explained how the center is considered in the Watsonville Municipal Code section.

Line 11 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Vice Chair Radin requested clarification regarding the management of the Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC). Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach deferred that question to the applicant.

Line 12 in the Appeal Process:

Vice Chair Radin inquired what the negative impacts are of submitting a building permit to Caltrans for review and comments prior to approving the application.

Interim Asst. Community Development Director Orbach replied he is not sure, but clarified that at the time of the communication in question the City had not received a building permit application for the project and that the only feedback provided by Caltrans was to inform the applicant that they would be required to submit an encroachment permit to Caltrans for any work in the Caltrans right of way as part of the future building permit submittal.

Vice Chair shared a comment regarding the timing of submittals.

Line 13 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 14 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Line 15 in the Appeal Process: No clarifying or technical questions made by the Planning Commission.

Vice Chair requested for the time to be increased for presentations for the applicant and appellant.

MAIN MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Rojas, seconded by Commissioner Sencion, and carried by the following vote to approve the increase of time for presentations from 5 minutes to 10 minutes:

Deliberation

Page 885 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

5 None
Chair Calls for a Vote on Motion(s)
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Radin, Rojas, Sencion, Meldahl
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Acosta, Veitch-Olson
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Dodge
3) Appellant Presentation
Appellant Catalina Torres, Marta Bulaich and Ilia Bulaich gave the presentation. 4) Applicant Presentation
The applicant Roxanne Wilson, on behalf of the County of Monterey, gave the presentation.
5) Planning Commission Clarifying & Technical Questions Commissioner Dodge asked the applicant if the organization had been actively involved in the Pajaro area after the floods or before. In answering, applicant Wilson clarified their involvement with Monterey County and Santa Cruz County including services needed along the levee that touches both counties.

Commissioner Dodge inquired about the roles of responsibilities of each county.

In answering, applicant Wilson shared the timeline of events that led to the coordinating efforts to this day, including shared resources such as grants.

Commissioner Dodge asked the applicant if they received information from the State of California Housing & Community Development. In answering, applicant Wilson confirmed they did, including information pertaining to state law regarding LBNCs. She further explained the use and purpose of the LBNC currently in Cities of Salinas, Seaside and Monterey and their transitional rates.

Vice Chair Radin requested
answering, Assistant City Attorney Wagner referenced Government Code section 65662 for an LBNC and clarified that the letter from the Attorney submitted by the appellant refers to an incorrect submittal of the project and code provisions.

Commissioner Dodge asked for confirmation that Staff is not erroneous in interpreting the LBNC application. Assistant City Attorney Wagner confirmed that Staff appropriately applied City regulations and statutory requirements for LBNCs.
6) Public Hearing
Vice Chair opened the public hearing.

Page 886 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

6 The following community members spoke in favor:

Paz Padilla
Elaine Johnson
Bobby Marchessault
Gretchen Regenhardt
Pastor Don Hoffman
Elizabeth Rodriguez
Mike Kittredge
Member of California State Policy Advisory
Parole Officer
The following community members spoke against:

Sandra Demala
Ramon Pacheco
Hank Wempe
Gabriel David Jenara
Ron Ince
7) Appropriate Motion(s)
MAIN MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Sencion, and carried by the following vote to approve the following recommendation:

RESOLUTION NO. 09-24 (PC)

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (PP2024-7954) OF

ADMINISTRATOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT AND FINDING

PROJECT EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15268
8) Deliberation
Commissioner Dodge shared a comment in support of the project.

Vice Chair Radin shared a comment in support of the item and acknowledged the involvement of the community.
9) Chair Calls for a Vote on Motion(s)

Page 887 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

7 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Dodge, Radin, Rojas, Sencion, Meldahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Acosta, Veitch-Olson
B. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF CHAPTER 11 (STREET TREES) WITHIN TITLE 7 AND ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 55 (PRESERVATION OF TREES AND TREE CANOPY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) WITHIN TITLE 14 OF THE

WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE
1) Appropriate Motion(s)
MAIN MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Rojas, and carried by the following vote to move the item to the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 2025.
2) Public Hearing
Vice Chair opened the public hearing.

Hearing no comments, Vice Chair closed the public hearing. 3) Vice Chair calls for a Vote on Motion(s)
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Dodge, Radin, Rojas, Sencion, Meldahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Acosta, Veitch-Olson

5. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY
Interim Community Development Director Meek shared that the City is organizing a Homeless Taskforce and invited members of the public who would like to participate for further information. Interim Director Meek also reported on the meeting held earlier that day with federal, regional and local agencies along with nonprofit groups to discuss the challenges and opportunities to obtaining needed grant funding for implementing transportation projects, including those identified for downtown Watsonville. The meeting was funded by a grant obtained by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission through the U.S. Department of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021.

6. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Acosta adjourned the meeting at 8:23 PM. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2025, at 6:00 PM.

Page 888 of 1242 ends

ADOPTED MINUTES 4.A.

8 ________________________ ________________________________ Justin Meek, Secretary Peter Radin, Vice Chair
Planning Commission Planning Commission

Page 889 of 1242 ends

1 of 4
4912-5418-9569 v1
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 24 (PC)

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (PP2024-7954)

OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE

REVIEW PERMIT FOR A LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER
(#PP2023-6297) LOCATED AT 118 1st STREET, 5 CHERRY COURT, AND 120 1ST STREET (APNs: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) AND UPHOLDING

APPROVAL BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REVIEW PERMIT AND FINDING PROJECT EXEMPT FROM REVIEW

Page 890 of 1242 ends

Page 891 of 1242 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville, California, as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution as findings of the Planning Commission.

Page 892 of 1242 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville, California, held on the 3rd day of December 2024, by Commissioner Dodge, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Commissioner Sencion, was upon roll call, carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioners: Dodge, Radin, Rojas, Sencion, Meldahl Noes: Commissioners: None

Absent: Commissioners: Acosta
Abstain: Commissioners: Veitch-Olson
_________________________________ _______________________________ Justin Meek, Secretary Peter Radin, Vice Chairperson Planning Commission Planning Commission

Page 893 of 1242 ends

4922-7088-7715 v1
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (CM)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (#PP 2024-8380) OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF AN APPEAL (#PP2024-
7954) OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF AN

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT FOR A LOW-BARRIER
NAVIGATION CENTER (#PP2023-6297) LOCATED AT 118 1st STREET, 5 CHERRY COURT, AND 120 1ST STREET (APNs: 017-172-32, 31, & 35)

AND UPHOLDING APPROVAL BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT AND FINDING PROJECT EXEMPT

FROM REVIEW UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15268
WHEREAS, the subject parcels are located at 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32), 5 Cherry Court (APN: 017-172-31), and 120 1st Street (APN: 017-172-35) (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the main site location, 118 1st Street, is occupied by the Westview Presbyterian Church, which owns all three subject parcels; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is designated Downtown Central Core on the General Plan Land Use Map and is located within the Downtown Core zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Core zoning district is a mixed-use zone in which multifamily residential uses are principally permitted; and WHEREAS, in June 2023, the County of Monterey received a notice of award from the State of California for their Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) grant application in the requested amount of $7,986,354 to provide funding for the Recurso de Fuerza Village program which includes development of 34-individual, non-congregate, low barrier, service rich shelter beds and provision of housing navigation and supportive services to people living along the Pajaro River; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, the County of Monterey, applicant, on behalf of Westview Presbyterian Church, property owner, submitted an application (#PP2023- 6297) for a Zoning Clearance/Administrative Review Permit (ARP) for a housing navigation center located at 5 Cherry Court; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2023, the City of Watsonville provided the applicant with a guidance letter outlining the additional information required for permit processing based on the understanding that the project was an emergency shelter that would be subject to Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC) Chapter 14-43; and

Page 894 of 1242 ends

4922-7088-7715 v1
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted plans for ARP #PP2023-6297 that showed the proposed low barrier navigation center (LBNC) located on the parcel at 118 1st Street rather than 5 Cherry Court; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2024, the City of Watsonville provided the applicant with a response to the July 11 resubmittal requesting an amended ARP application including an updated scope of work for the proposed project identifying the specific parcels where all project elements (LBNC, parking, fire access, etc.) would be located as well as a detailed description of the proposed use for each of the parcels and confirmation of whether the proposed project should be considered as an ‘emergency shelter’ as defined in WMC Section 14-18.331; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted project plans with an amended ARP application and an amended memorandum; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2024, the County of Monterey resubmitted an amended version of the memorandum that was submitted with the amended ARP application on August 23, 2024. The amended memo removed a paragraph on page two stating that the project was “intended to be an ‘emergency shelter’” and replaced it with a paragraph stating that the project was “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)”; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 65660, et seq., requires a Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) to be a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements, which are limited to: access to permanent housing, use of a coordinated entry system (i.e., Homeless Management Information System), use of Housing First according to Welfare and Institutions Code § 8255, and a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit destination through the local Homeless Management Information System as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and WHEREAS, all three parcels that comprise the Project Site are designated Downtown Central Core on the General Plan Land Use Map and are located within the Downtown Core zoning district. The Downtown Core zoning district is a mixed-use zone in which multifamily residential uses are principally permitted. The Downtown Core zoning district does not include any standards that are applicable to LBNCs; and WHEREAS, the existing church use on the Project Site is a “legal non-conforming use” that is separate and distinct from the LBNC; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2024, the Zoning Administrator determined that ARP #PP2023-6297 for a LBNC was complete and approved the permit. The determination letter included comments and requests for additional information that should be included with the building permit application submittal; and

Page 895 of 1242 ends

4922-7088-7715 v1
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2024, City staff received an appeal application (#PP2024-7954) for the Zoning Administrator approval of ARP #PP2023-6297; and WHEREAS, notice of time and place of the hearing to consider Appeal #PP2024- 7954 was given at the time and in the manner prescribed by the WMC; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, received public comment, closed the public hearing, and voted unanimously to deny the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, City staff received an appeal (#PP2024- 8380) of the Planning Commission’s denial of appeal #PP2024-6297; and WHEREAS, notice of time and place of the hearing to consider Appeal #PP2024- 8380 was given at the time and in the manner prescribed by the WMC; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all written and verbal evidence regarding Appeal #PP2024-8380 of the Planning Commission’s denial of Appeal #PP2024-7954 of Zoning Administrator approval of an ARP for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street, 5 Cherry Court, and 120 1st Street (APNs: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) and has made the finding that the Zoning Administrator approval of ARP #PP2023-6297 was correct because the project complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65662 related to low-barrier navigation centers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Watsonville, California, as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.

Section 2. Approval of #PP2023-6297, and the denial of Appeal #PP2024-8380, is statutorily exempt as a ministerial use from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268.

Government Code § 65660 provides for Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) and specifies that an LBNC is a use by right, which has the same definition used in Government Code § Section 65583.2(i) that states local government review may not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Watsonville hereby finds based upon all of the evidence in the record that the action taken by the Planning Commission to deny appeal #PP2024-7954 and uphold the determination of the Zoning Administrator approving an Administrative Review Permit for a low barrier navigation center at the Project Site #PP2023-6297 was not erroneously taken and the Planning Commission’s

Page 896 of 1242 ends

4922-7088-7715 v1
decision is consistent with the of the Zoning District regulations and in this case Government Code Section 65600, et seq.

Section 4. The City Council of the City of Watsonville does hereby deny Appeal #PP2024-8380 of the Planning Commission’s denial of Appeal #PP2024-7954, of Zoning Administrator approval of an Administrative Review Permit for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) on the basis that the project meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65660, et seq., and therefore upholds the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Administrative Review Permit.

Section 4. If any legal challenge against the project approvals is submitted to the City or filed in a Court of law, applicant shall defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, offices, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from a claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or adoption of the environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the Applicant, third parties and/or the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities.

Page 897 of 1242 ends

118 1 ST STREET

LOW - BARRIER

NAVIGATION
CENTER
Appeal (#2024-8380) of Planning
Commission Denial of Appeal (#2024-
7954) of Zoning Administrator Approval of
Administrative Review Permit #2023-6297

Page 898 of 1242 ends

118 1 ST STREET - LOW - BARRIER NAVIGATION
CENTER – RECURSO DE FUERZA
• Joint project between County of Monterey and County of Santa Cruz. • County of Monterey received an Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) grant of $7,986.354 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide funding for the Recurso de Fuerza Village program.
• The program includes development of 34 individual, non-congregate, low barrier, service rich shelter beds and provision of housing navigation and supportive services to people living along the Pajaro River for a two-year period.

Page 899 of 1242 ends

118 1 ST STREET - LOW - BARRIER
NAVIGATION CENTER – TIMELINE
Timeline:
• October 24, 2023 – Initial submittal (ARP #PP2023-6297) • November 29, 2023 – Guidance Letter sent to applicant • November 2023 – June 2024 – Building and Planning
Staff meetings with applicant team
• July 11, 2024 – Second submittal
• July 26, 2024 – Second submittal response letter sent to applicant
• August 23, 2024 – Third submittal
• September 20, 2024 – Permit #PP2023-6297 approved
• October 2, 2024 – Appeal #2024-7954 received
• December 3, 2024 – Appeal #2024-7954 denied
• December 16, 2024 – Appeal #2024-8380 received

Page 900 of 1242 ends

LOW - BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER – DEFINITION
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” means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include:
• The presence of partners
• Pets
• Storage of possessions
• Privacy

Page 901 of 1242 ends

AB 101 (2019)
AB 101 (commencing with Gov. Code § 65660)
pertains to low-barrier navigation center regulations
and does the following:
• Provides statutory changes necessary to enact the
housing and homelessness-related provisions of the
Budget Act of 2019, including streamlining the
approval of low-barrier navigation centers.
• Provides a “by-right” process and expedited review
for low-barrier navigation centers in certain types of
zones.
• Prohibits local governments from requiring a
conditional use permit or other discretionary
approval of low-barrier navigation centers in mixeduse zones if certain operational standards are met. 118 1 ST STREET

LOW - BARRIER

NAVIGATION
CENTER –
AB 101

Page 902 of 1242 ends

ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS – ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PERMIT
As a “by right” use, the only entitlement required for the LBNC is an Administrative Review Permit.

Per WMC Section 14-12.300, the purpose of an Administrative Review Permit is to assure, prior to establishment of an otherwise principally permitted (i.e., “by right”) use that the provisions of the WMC and other appropriate State and local regulations are met.

There are no provisions of the WMC related to LBNCs, so the only regulations applicable to the project are those in Gov. Code Section 65662. Page 903 of 1242 GOVERNMENT CODE § 65662 - LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION

CENTERS ( LBNC )
Per Gov. Code § 65662, a LBNC 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 section and a local jurisdiction shall permit a LBNC development if 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.
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 (HMIS). Page 904 of 1242
GOVERNMENT CODE § 65662 - LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION

CENTERS ( LBNC )
a) It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.

Supportive Evidence: Per the ERF grant, the project is required to comply with Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of Care “Operational Standards for Emergency Shelters” and the County of Monterey Homeless Services “Good Neighbor Protocol.” Services staffing will be provided by several agencies, including CSUMB Community Health Engagement (CHE), HomeFirst, and Community Action Board (CAB), as outlined in the ERF grant application.

Page 905 of 1242 ends

GOVERNMENT CODE § 65662 - LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION

CENTERS ( LBNC )
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.

Supportive Evidence: CAB, as the operator and service provider for the LBNC, will participate in the local Coordinated Entry System as required by the Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of Care “Operational Standards for Emergency Shelters.”

Page 906 of 1242 ends

GOVERNMENT CODE § 65662 - LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION

CENTERS ( LBNC )
c) It complies with Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC).

Supportive Evidence: Housing First requirements apply to all programs receiving ERF grants. The project was awarded $7,986,354 in ERF grant funding, so the LBNC will comply with Chapter 6.5 of Division 8 of the WIC. In addition, Housing First requirements are required by the Lead Me Home Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of Care “Operational Standards for Emergency Shelters.”

Page 907 of 1242 ends

GOVERNMENT CODE § 65662 - LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION

CENTERS ( LBNC )
WIC § 8255(d)(1) - “Housing First” means the evidence-based model that uses housing as a tool, rather than a reward, for recovery and that centers on providing or connecting homeless people to permanent housing as quickly as possible. Housing First providers offer services as needed and requested on a voluntary basis and that do not make housing contingent on participation in services.

Page 908 of 1242 ends

GOVERNMENT CODE § 65662 - LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION

CENTERS ( LBNC )
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 (HMIS).

Supportive Evidence: CAB, as the operator and service provider for the LBNC, will enter participant data into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) managed by the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP). Programs must follow CHSP’s HMIS policies and procedures.

Page 909 of 1242 ends

Project Approval
• Based on compliance with the four criteria identified in Government Code Section 65662, Administrative Review Permit application #PP2023-6297 was approved on Friday, September 20, 2024.

Determination Letter
• The determination letter included feedback from all City departments, including Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire, and Police.
• City Staff requested additional or clarifying information to be submitted with the building permit submittal related to:
• Fencing, landscaping, & ingress/egress striping
• Fire requirements (fire sprinklers, fire extinguishers, etc.) • Occupancy, allowable openings, ingress/egress, & accessibility • Utility locations, electric service, pet waste, alignment with upcoming Caltrans improvements at 1st Street/CA-129
• On-site surveillance system
118 1 ST STREET

LOW - BARRIER

NAVIGATION
CENTER –

ARP APPROVAL
&

DETERMINATION
LETTER

Page 910 of 1242 ends

APPEAL – PP2024 - 7954
On October 2, 2024, City staff received an appeal application (PP2024-7954) from Catalina Torres requesting that the Planning Commission overrule and rescind the Zoning Administrator’s approval of ARP #PP2023-6297. The appellant contended that the approval was “defective and improper” based on fifteen reasons identified in the letter.

Page 911 of 1242 ends

APPEAL PROCESS

1. City Staff withheld information from City Council.

2. Staff made false statements to City Council.

3. Staff improperly accepted the application.

4. Staff did not consider existing uses and conditions in approving the application.

5. Staff improperly conducted informational meetings for adjacent residents.

6. Staff improperly withheld documents related to a PRA request.

7. Staff made false statements related to the completeness of the application.

8. Staff failed to require a Special Use Permit for the Church as a prerequisite for the project.

Page 912 of 1242 ends

APPEAL PROCESS

9. Staff did not respond to the legal analysis from the neighborhood attorney.

10.Staff improperly approved the application without considering the project as an emergency shelter under the applicable WMC section.

11.Staff did not identify or request qualifications for the entity responsible for managing the LBNC.

12.Staff improperly submitted a building permit submission to Caltrans prior to approving the ARP application.

13.Staff failed to evaluate the animal policy of the LBNC.

14.Staff failed to require a Good Neighbor Policy.

15.Staff failed to consider off-site issues at 150 Second Street. Page 913 of 1242

APPEAL PROCESS
In order for the Zoning Administrator’s approval of ARP #PP2023-6297 to be overturned, the Planning Commission would have been required to find that the action taken by the Zoning Administrator was taken erroneously and was inconsistent with the intent of the zoning district regulations that regulate the proposed action.

The “proposed action” is regulated by Gov. Code § 65662, so the Planning Commission was 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 Gov. Code § 65662.

Page 914 of 1242 ends

APPEAL PROCESS

1. City Staff withheld information from City Council.

2. Staff made false statements to City Council.

3. Staff improperly accepted the application.

4. Staff did not consider existing uses and conditions in approving the application.

5. Staff improperly conducted informational meetings for adjacent residents.

6. Staff improperly withheld documents related to a PRA request.

7. Staff made false statements related to the completeness of the application.

8. Staff failed to require a Special Use Permit for the Church as a prerequisite for the project.

Page 915 of 1242 ends

APPEAL PROCESS – USE ANALYSIS
Gov. Code § 65662 does not identify any requirements related to existing uses on a project site or on adjacent properties. The only use-related requirement is that the site be zoned for mixed-use. The Downtown Core zoning district is a mixed-use zone in which multifamily residential uses are principally permitted, so the LBNC is allowed by right.

Existing uses on the three project parcels, nonconforming or permitted, cannot be considered as part of the project analysis or approval and are not a prerequisite for the project.

Page 916 of 1242 ends

APPEAL PROCESS – NONCONFORMING USE ANALYSIS –
CHURCH
WMC § 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.

Page 917 of 1242 ends

APPEAL PROCESS

9. Staff did not respond to the legal analysis from the neighborhood attorney.

10.Staff improperly approved the application without considering the project as an emergency shelter under the applicable WMC section.

11.Staff did not identify or request qualifications for the entity responsible for managing the LBNC.

12.Staff improperly submitted a building permit submission to Caltrans prior to approving the ARP application.

13.Staff failed to evaluate the animal policy of the LBNC.

14.Staff failed to require a Good Neighbor Policy.

15.Staff failed to consider off-site issues at 150 Second Street. Page 918 of 1242

APPEAL PROCESS
Gov. Code § 65662(a)
It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.

City has no authority to request or analyze the qualifications of the services provider(s).

Page 919 of 1242 ends

APPEAL DISCUSSION SUMMARY
On December 3, 2024, after a discussion of the appeal, the Planning Commission found that the information presented in the appeal letter did not provide a basis for overturning or rescinding the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Administrative Review Permit #PP2023-6297 because it does not demonstrate that the action was taken erroneously or that it was inconsistent with the intent of Gov. Code § 65662.

Page 920 of 1242 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 14-24 (PC) denying the appeal (#PP2024-7954) and upholding the Zoning Administrator approval of an Administrative Review Permit for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) and found the project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15268.

Page 921 of 1242 ends

APPEAL – PP2024 - 8380
On December 16, 2024, City staff received an appeal application (PP2024-8380) from Catalina Torres requesting that the City Council overrule the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Appeal #PP2024-7954 and rescind the Zoning Administrator’s approval of ARP #PP2023-6297.

Page 922 of 1242 ends

APPEAL – PP2024 - 8380
The appellant identified five reasons for the appeal as well as a list of 32 “procedural defects of the Commission and the Meeting, serving as further grounds for petitioning to overturn the Commission’s decision.” The reasons for appeal include:

1. The Entitlement Review Process

2. Government Code Section 65662

3. Letter from Attorney William R. Seligmann

4. Validity of the Commission Agenda Report

5. December 3, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

Page 923 of 1242 ends

1. THE ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS
• Land entitlement is the legal process by which a developer or landowner receives government approval for a development plan.
• This is separate from the building permit process, where a developer or landowner receives government approval to construct a specific project in compliance with the building code, state stormwater requirements, etc.
• An Administrative Review Permit is an entitlement.
• The Zoning Administrator’s review and approval of an Administrative Review Permit application is an entitlement review process.

Page 924 of 1242 ends

1. THE ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS
• The entitlement process begins when the application is submitted and ends when it is approved.
• Actions that occur before or after that time period are not part of the entitlement review process.
• The review process is limited to reviewing the application for compliance with the applicable municipal code section(s) and/or state statutes.

Page 925 of 1242 ends

1. THE ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Many of the issues raised in the first appeal were not related to, and could not be considered under, the entitlement review process, including:
• Interactions between City Staff and City Council at public meetings • Informational public meetings put on by the City Manager’s office • Public Records Act requests
• Communications between City staff and other regional agencies such as Caltrans

Page 926 of 1242 ends

2. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65662
“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 use on the Church parcels.”
“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.”

Page 927 of 1242 ends

3. LETTER FROM ATTORNEY WILLIAM R. SELIGMANN
Appellant Contention:
“…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.”

Page 928 of 1242 ends

APPEAL – PP2024 - 8380
Letter from Attorney William R. Seligmann

Page 929 of 1242 ends

4. 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.”

Page 930 of 1242 ends

5. 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.”

Page 931 of 1242 ends

HCD LETTER OF SUPPORT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
• On Tuesday, November 19, 2024, City staff received a letter of support and technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) related to the appeal (#PP2024-7954) of ARP #PP2023- 6297.
• HCD is the state agency charged with administering, interpreting, and enforcing state housing law in California.
• Letter includes an overview of applicable state housing laws and states that the City acted appropriately in approving the Project ministerially. • Letter concludes by reminding the City that 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. Page 932 of 1242

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Approval of the Administrative Review Permit is statutorily exempt as a ministerial use from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268.

Page 933 of 1242 ends

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal (#PP2024-8380) of the Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal (#PP2024-7954) and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s approval of an Administrative Review Permit for a low-barrier navigation center (#PP2023-6297) located at 118 1st Street, 5 Cherry Court, and 120 1st Street (APN: 017-172-32, 31, & 35) and upholding approval by the Zoning Administrator of an Administrative Review Permit and finding the project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15268.

Page 934 of 1242 ends

Date: March 6th, 2025
To: Watsonville City Council
City of Watsonville
275 Main Street, Suite 400
Watsonville, CA 95076
Subject: Letter of Support for Recurso de Fuerza - The Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Recurso de Fuerza project, also known as the Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center, and to encourage your consideration and approval for this important initiative aimed at addressing homelessness in our community. This “housing-first” project is a critical step forward in providing those experiencing homelessness in our community a much-needed alternative to living in the streets.

The Tiny Homes Village will be operated by the Community Action Board (CAB) of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB) and will consist of 34 beds in a secure and supportive environment, allowing residents to have access to basic needs and an opportunity to move forward in their journey toward permanent housing. The low-barrier navigation center will provide shelter to individuals for roughly six months, with staff dedicated to helping residents overcome barriers such as substance use disorders, behavioral health challenges, and other obstacles that might otherwise prevent them from obtaining housing.

Additionally, regular neighborhood clean-up events will be conducted in partnership with CAB’s Watsonville Works and residents, fostering community engagement.

Page 935 of 1242 ends

We understand that concerns have been raised by the neighborhood, and we completely trust that CAB is committed to actively engaging with neighbors. CAB has been providing services in our community for 60 years and is a trusted messenger and partner. As part of this commitment, CAB is conducting a door-to-door outreach campaign to listen to concerns, answer questions, and explore opportunities for collaboration in creating a safe and healthy community.

We appreciate your support for this vital project, and we believe that this project, led by CAB, is extremely meaningful and will strengthen our community as a whole.

Thank you for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,
Linda Alves, LCSW, MPP
Chief Operations Officer

Page 936 of 1242 ends

From: Meg Clark
To: Vanessa Quiroz; cityclerk; Eduardo Montesino
Subject: Letter of Support for Recurso de Fuerza - The Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 2:43:23 PM
To: Watsonville City Council
City of Watsonville
275 Main Street, Suite 400
Watsonville, CA 95076
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Recurso de Fuerza project, also known as the Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center, and to encourage your consideration and approval for this important initiative aimed at addressing homelessness in our community.

This “housing-first” project is a critical step forward in providing those experiencing homelessness in our community a much needed alternative to living in the streets. The Tiny Homes Village, will be operated by the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB) and will consist of 34 beds in a secure and supportive environment, allowing residents to have access to basic needs and an opportunity to move forward in their journey toward permanent housing. The low barrier navigation center will provide shelter to individuals for roughly six months, with staff dedicated to helping
residents overcome barriers such as substance use disorders, behavioral health challenges, and other obstacles that might otherwise prevent them from obtaining housing.

One of the key strengths of this approach is its housing-first model, which does not require individuals to meet preconditions like sobriety or therapy to access a bed. Residents will have a safe, dignified place to stay in a Tiny Home they can lock, offering privacy and security that traditional shelters may not provide. The CAB team will work with residents on-site to connect them with the necessary services and resources, such as behavioral health and medical care, as well as assist with increasing their income to afford permanent housing. The center will be supported by a well-trained team, including an Operations/Program Manager, case managers, housing navigators, advocates (many with lived experience), and healthcare professionals. There will also be security measures in place, including a security guard and 24/7 video surveillance to ensure
safety for both residents and the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, regular neighborhood clean-up events will be conducted in partnership with CAB’s Watsonville Works and residents, fostering community engagement.

We understand that some concerns have been raised by the neighborhood and we know that CAB is committed to actively engaging with neighbors. CAB has been providing services in our community for 60 years and is a trusted messenger and partner. As part of this commitment, they are conducting a door-to- door outreach campaign to listen to concerns, answer questions, and explore opportunities for collaboration in creating a safe and healthy community.

We appreciate your support for this vital project, and we believe that this project, led by CAB, is extremely meaningful and will strengthen our community as a whole.

Thank you for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,
--
Meg Clark

Page 937 of 1242 ends

Page 938 of 1242 ends

From: City Council
To: Eduardo Montesino; Vanessa Quiroz; Maria Orozco; Kristal Salcido; Casey Clark; Jimmy Dutra; Ari Parker; cityclerk
Subject: FW: Public Comment
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 3:43:37 PM
From: Flora Lu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 3:43:22 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in regards to item number (#PP2024-8380) project title "Tiny Homes Project Appeal". I am writing to express my support for the Low Barrier Navigation Center at the Tiny Homes Village, which would provide temporary shelter for people experiencing housing insecurity. This resource is much needed as a stepping stone towards providing people with permanent housing and longterm stability. This is a "housing first approach" with low barriers to entry that provides access to a variety of supportive services.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Flora
Flora Lu
she/her/hers
Professor, Environmental Studies
UC Santa Cruz
Mailing Address:

Mailstop: Environmental Studies
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Email: [email protected]
(Office, Nat Sci II room 479) 831-459-2034
(Lab, Nat Sci II room 407) 831-459-2497
(Fax) 831-459-4015

Page 939 of 1242 ends

From: City Council
To: Eduardo Montesino; Vanessa Quiroz; Maria Orozco; Kristal Salcido; Casey Clark; Jimmy Dutra; Ari Parker; cityclerk
Subject: FW: Public Comment
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:54:43 AM
From: Jeanne Sears <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:54:22 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment
I am writing to support the Tiny Homes Project Appeal (#PP2024-8380). We very much need creative housing solutions in and around Watsonville. As a nurse and public health researcher, I have read important research showing that low-barrier housing is associated with positive outcomes, and can be an important first step in the journey toward more stable housing. I urge you to support this appeal.

Thank you,
Jeanne Sears, PhD, RN

Page 940 of 1242 ends

Page 941 of 1242 ends

Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County | 800 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 95076-7005 | (831) 722-7110 | thefoodbank.org March 10, 2025
Watsonville City Council
275 Main Street, Suite 400
Watsonville, CA 95076
Subject: Letter of Support for Recurso de Fuerza - The Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Recurso de Fuerza project, also known as the Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center, and to encourage your consideration and approval for this important initiative aimed at addressing homelessness in our community. This “housing-first” project is a critical step forward in providing those experiencing homelessness in our community a much-needed alternative to living in the streets.

The Tiny Homes Village, will be operated by the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB) and will consist of 34 beds in a secure and supportive environment, allowing residents to have access to basic needs and an opportunity to move forward in their journey toward permanent housing.

The low barrier navigation center will provide shelter to individuals for roughly six months, with staff dedicated to helping residents overcome barriers such as substance use disorders, behavioral health challenges, and other obstacles that might otherwise prevent them from obtaining housing.

The center will be supported by a well-trained team, including an Operations/Program Manager, case managers, housing navigators, advocates (many with lived experience), and healthcare professionals. There will also be security measures in place, including a security guard and 24/7 video surveillance to ensure safety for both residents and the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, regular neighborhood clean-up events will be conducted in partnership with CAB’s Watsonville Works and residents, fostering community engagement.

Page 942 of 1242 ends

Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County
800 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 95076-7005
(831) 722-7110 ▼ thefoodbank.org
We understand that some concerns have been raised by the neighborhood and we know that CAB is committed to actively engaging with neighbors. CAB has been providing services in our community for 60 years and is a trusted messenger and partner. As part of this commitment, they are conducting a door-to-door outreach campaign to listen to concerns, answer questions, and explore opportunities for collaboration in creating a safe and healthy community.

We appreciate your support for this vital project, and we believe that this project, led by CAB, is extremely meaningful and will strengthen our community as a whole.

Thank you for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,
Erica Padilla-Chavez, CEO

Page 943 of 1242 ends

From: Isaí Ambrosio
To: Ari Parker; cityclerk
Cc: Paz Padilla; Mike Kittredge
Subject: Support for Recurso de Fuerza - Tiny Homes Village and Navigation Center Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:14:33 PM
Attachments: Outlook-euges203.png
Outlook-fdvabdnx.png
Outlook-lnq1da4e.png
Outlook-njmztdi3.png
Outlook-5tvohymv.png
Outlook-lhdv1eb1.png
Dear Ari,
My name is Isaí and I live on Glemar Street; I have been a Watsonville resident since 1997 and my wife, a teacher at PVUSD, are proud parents of a son and proud residents of Glemar Street since our son's birth in 2008, he was born in that house.

I strongly support the Recurso de Fuerza project, also known as the Tiny Homes Village and Low Barrier Navigation Center and urge your approval. This "housing-first" initiative is crucial for providing an alternative to street living for our homeless community.

Operated by the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB), the Tiny Homes Village will offer 34 beds in a secure environment, helping residents move towards permanent housing. The navigation center will provide six months of shelter, assisting residents with overcoming barriers like substance use and behavioral health challenges.

This housing-first model does not require preconditions like sobriety, offering residents a safe, private place to stay. CAB will connect residents with necessary services and resources, including health care and income assistance.

The center will be supported by a dedicated team and security measures, including a guard and 24/7 surveillance. Regular neighborhood clean-up events will also foster community engagement.

CAB, a trusted community partner for 60 years, is committed to addressing neighborhood concerns through active engagement and outreach.

We appreciate your support for this vital project, which will strengthen our community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
--Isaí
Isaí Ambrosio

Page 944 of 1242 ends

Program Director
Email: [email protected] | Office: 831-425-8115
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.
406 Main St., Suite #, Watsonville, CA 95076

Page 945 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO

WATSONVILLE CITY STAFF

AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL (#PP2024-8380) OF PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF AN APPEAL (#PP2024-7954) OF

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF AN

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERMIT FOR A LOW-BARRIER
NAVIGATION CENTER (#PP2023-6297) LOCATED AT 118 1ST
STREET, 5 CHERRY COURT, AND 120 1ST STREET
REFERENCE: Agenda Item 11.a of the March 11, 2025 Watsonville City Council Meeting
Date: March 11, 2025
Appellant: Catalina Torres, Neighborhood Leader
Coalición del Distrito Uno Oeste para Familias, Seguridad y Justicia Social 121 Second Street, Apartment F
Watsonville, CA 95076
1

Page 946 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

1. City Response:

Appellant asserts that the Planning Commission staff report was defective because “… it didn’t have a formal document date shown” and that this “is contrary to best document management practices and leads to confusion in future referencing.”
Both the Planning Commission and the staff report for Planning Commission appeal hearing clearly identify the meeting date of December 3, 2024. This is consistent with the City’s practice of identifying agenda documents. It is also clear on the City’s website that these documents related to the December 3, 2024, meeting. This is a non-substantive issue and is not a basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal.

1. Appellant Response:

The City’s dismissal of the missing formal document date as a “non-substantive issue” ignores well-established legal principles that require public agencies to maintain clear, accurate, and properly documented records. Using the date of the report header as the individual document date creates objectionable ambiguity that undermines the integrity of the public record. The City’s failure to ensure proper recordkeeping, particularly when paired with the Planning Commission’s reliance on acknowledged false statements by staff, demonstrates a broader pattern of procedural neglect. The absence of a formal document date is not just an administrative oversight but a 2

Page 947 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL symptom of a flawed process that compromises transparency, public accountability, and due process. The City’s response does not address the fundamental issue, an improperly documented and misleading decision-making process is grounds for appeal.
3

Page 948 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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. 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 4

Page 949 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 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. 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.
5

Page 950 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL [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.

2. City Response:

Mr. Seligmann submitted a letter to the City Council dated July 29, 2024, with the subject line “Tiny Home Application – 118 & 120 First Street, 5 Cherry Court.” Ms. Torres contends that failure to include Mr.

Seligmann’s letter in the Planning Commission packet was a procedural defect and is a basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.

This is inaccurate for a number of reasons, including:
- It was not submitted as a public comment to the Planning Commission;
- It was not included in Ms. Torres’ appeal documents – she indicates that the letter is referenced in the appeal so that it should have been included, however, all of the issues raised in the appeal to the Planning Commission were addressed by staff, and if Ms. Torres wanted the letter included it should have been attached to the appeal;
- The letter was submitted to the Planning Commission as an attachment to an email from Marta Bulaich on the morning of December 2, 2024. The letter is essentially two pages long and the Commissioners had ample opportunity to review it prior to the Planning Commission meeting on December 3.

As indicated above, Mr. Seligmann’s July 29, 2024, letter is addressed to all of the Council members. It is also attached to the appeal to the 6

Page 951 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL City Council as an attachment to Marta Bulaich’s email (appeal attachment 2). However, to ensure that the Council has easy access to the letter it is attached here as Attachment 17. Mr. Seligmann’s letter identified two areas that he believed needed to be addressed related to the project:
- “The inapplicability of Senate Bill 4 of 2023; and
- The necessity for a Special Use Permit for the change in church operations.”
First, the project approved by the Zoning Administrator was not submitted under Senate Bill (SB) 4 but rather, it was submitted under the provisions of Government Code Section 65660, et seq., as a LBNC.

Under SB 4, the "Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023," 100% affordable housing projects located on “religious institutions” or an “independent institution of higher education” are a “use by right.” Mr. Seligmann indicated his belief that the project did not comply with the requirements of SB 4 on the basis that it would be within 1,200 feet of a site that is subject to permitting by an Air Resources District
2 and that therefore: “Given that Senate Bill 4 is
inapplicable, the proposed project must comply with all of the applicable provisions in Watsonville’s local land use regulations.” (emphasis added). Mr. Seligmann then concludes that the existing church on the project site must obtain a Special Use Permit.”
The existing church is now a “non-conforming” use in that it existed prior to the previous and current zoning. Under the previous Institutional (N) zoning, church uses required a Special Use Permit. With the adoption of the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP), a Special Use Permit is now required for churches in the Downtown Core zoning district (DWSP Table 6-3, Land Use Regulations). However, the church use existed prior to the adoption of either of those zoning code updates, so the church use is a legal nonconforming use.
7

Page 952 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Regarding Non-Conforming Uses, WMC Section 14-20.050 provides:
“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. Residential nonconforming uses may not be expanded to increase the
number of dwelling units on a lot where the minimum standards of land-area-per-dwelling-unit for the district cannot be met.” 2 While this requirement is applicable to a SB 4 project, it is not applicable to a LBNC submitted under Government Code Section 65662.

Mr. Seligmann’s conclusion that a Special Use Permit is required for the existing church is predicated on the inapplicability of the use by right provisions of SB 4. However, the same logic that would allow by right development of affordable housing under SB 4 without the church acquiring a Special Use Permit also applies to the by right development of a LBNC in accordance with Government Code Section 65600, et seq.

In addition, the LBNC is a project submitted by the County of Monterey, not the existing church. The LBNC is a separate and distinct use on the site which is allowed by right. It is not part of the existing church use.

Even if the provisions of WMC Section 14-20.050 could be applied to the project, none of the criteria triggering the need for a Special Use Permit are met. The proposed project does not increase the size of the church, it does not increase the intensity of the church’s use of the property, and it does not modify the location or character of the church use.

2. Appellant Response:

The City’s attempt to justify the exclusion of William R. Seligmann’s legal 8

Page 953 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL analysis from the Planning Commission agenda packet is procedurally and legally flawed. The City claims the letter was not submitted as a public comment to the Planning Commission, yet acknowledges that it was attached to an email from Marta Bulaich on December 2, 2024—one day before the hearing—making it an official public comment. The City’s assertion that the letter was not included in the appeal packet is misleading, as the appeal directly referenced Seligmann’s legal analysis, which should have triggered Staff’s obligation to include and respond to it in the Commission Agenda Report.

The exclusion of this critical legal analysis effectively deprived the Commission of the opportunity to fully evaluate the legal basis of the appeal, undermining the procedural integrity of the hearing. Furthermore, the City’s contradictory statements—first claiming the letter was not submitted as public comment, then acknowledging that it was provided via email—demonstrate intentional procedural manipulation to suppress a legitimate legal argument.

Additionally, the City’s response fails to justify why staff selectively addressed only portions of the legal analysis while omitting its primary argument regarding the necessity of a Special Use Permit for the church’s modified operations. The City argues that Government Code Section 65662 preempts local zoning authority, yet it fails to engage with the specific points raised in Seligmann’s letter regarding how the existing nonconforming church use interacts with Watsonville’s zoning requirements.

City Planner Matt Orbach’s statement that staff “didn’t feel the need to address it separately” demonstrates an intentional and unilateral decision to suppress legal scrutiny, effectively usurping the Planning Commission’s role in evaluating competing legal arguments. This not only deprived the Commission of critical information but also biased the decision-making process in favor of Staff’s predetermined conclusions. 9

Page 954 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL The exclusion of this legal analysis, coupled with the City Attorney’s failure to obtain or review the document prior to the hearing, resulted in a procedurally defective decision. As Planning Commissioners relied on these incomplete and misleading representations, the decision-making process was fundamentally compromised, providing clear grounds for appeal.
10

Page 955 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

3. City Response:

While the primary audio support system in the City Council Chambers was not available, the City provided a secondary audio system for the meeting. No members of the audience present at the meeting raised concerns about any comments being inaudible during the meeting and the meeting video and minutes were posted as soon as they were available to the City Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes page at
https://www.watsonville.gov/195/Planning-Commission. This is a non-substantive issue and is not a basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal.

3. Appellant Response:

The City’s response dismisses the failure to provide a functional audiovisual support system as a “non-substantive issue,” but this directly undermines transparency, public participation, and the integrity of the decision-making process. The fact that a transcript of the meeting documents numerous instances of inaudible or garbled
audio—including statements by Commission Secretary Justin Meek—demonstrates a clear procedural deficiency. The claim that “no members of the audience raised concerns” is irrelevant, as the public had no way of knowing at the time whether critical statements were being properly recorded or would be rendered inaudible in the official video. The City's reliance on a secondary audio system does not negate 11

Page 956 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL the fact that the uploaded public record is incomplete and fails to accurately reflect the full discussion, impairing the ability of the public and future reviewers to evaluate the decision-making process.

Moreover, the City’s failure to ensure an intelligible public record is a violation of the Brown Act, which guarantees the public’s right to meaningful access to government proceedings. If key deliberations or public comments were inaccessible or incomprehensible to the public, then the process was inherently flawed. The failure to maintain a clear and functional public record is not a minor inconvenience—it is a fundamental violation of procedural fairness that further justifies overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
12

Page 957 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

4. Staff misled the Commission both in the Commission Agenda Report and in their presentation on the timeline of the entitlement review process.

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.”
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].
13

Page 958 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 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 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.

4. City Response:

Please see response to item B, above, regarding the entitlement review process. This entitlement process, which is separate and distinct from the grant application process undertaken by Monterey County, started when an application was submitted to the City for the project on October 17, 2023. The information presented in the Planning Commission Agenda Report and the presentation is accurate, as the Zoning Administrator is not involved in the entitlement process until an application is submitted to the City of Watsonville.

4. Appellant Response:

In their response, Staff makes reference to item B. Item B, located on page 9 of the City Council Agenda Report is text which gives Staff’s definition of the phrase, “The Entitlement Review Process.” While Staff’s definition is a convenient evasion for their practice of falsifying their zoning administration, it is not a valid definition for competently evaluating this appeal. During the Planning Commission hearing and, now for the City Council consideration of the Appeal, Staff attempts to illicitly confine evaluation of their procedural defects to the time period from the Zoning Clearance Permit Application submittal to final approval.

This is an invalid constraint and must not be used for evaluating the Appeal.

The City’s response misrepresents the timeline of the entitlement review 14

Page 959 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL process by attempting to artificially separate the grant application process from the entitlement process, despite clear evidence that the City of Watsonville—through the Zoning Administrator—served as both the site identifier and the streamliner of permitting well before the October 17, 2023, application submission. The City’s role in the ERF-2 grant process was not passive but active and foundational to the project’s approval, as demonstrated in multiple public records, including Roxanne Wilson’s February 14, 2023, presentation to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, in which Watsonville was explicitly identified as a co-applicant responsible for site identification and planning. Additionally, the August 21, 2023, letter from Wilson to Rene Mendez confirms the City's active role in site selection and streamlining approvals, well before the City’s claimed start date of October 2023.

The City’s assertion that the Zoning Administrator was not involved in the entitlement process until an application was submitted is demonstrably false, as the record clearly shows that the Zoning Administrator was identifying and recommending the church property for the project as early as 2022, as documented in the Salvation Army meeting minutes included in the Commission Agenda Package (pages 601-605). Staff’s omission of this early involvement in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation misled the Planning Commission into believing the project’s entitlement process began later than it actually did. This deception had a material impact on the Commission’s ability to fully assess the procedural integrity of the approval process, further justifying the need for an appeal. The City cannot retroactively rewrite the timeline to distance itself from its documented role as an early and active facilitator of this project.

This is grounds for overturning the appeal.
15

Page 960 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

5. City Response:

As indicated by staff during the Planning Commission public hearing on the appeal and as described above in response to item no. 2, the existing church on the property is a legal non-conforming use because it existed prior to the existing and previous zoning. Under the previous Institutional (N) zoning, church uses required a Special Use Permit. With the adoption of the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP), a Special Use Permit is now required for churches in the Downtown Core (DWSP Table 6-3, Land Use Regulations). The fact that a new church use is considered a conditional use in the Downtown Core zoning district is not relevant to the Zoning Administrator’s decision on the 16

Page 961 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL LBNC because the decision involves the establishment of a new LBNC use on the property, separate and distinct from the legal nonconforming church use. See response to no. 6 below.

5. Appellant Response:

A competent Agenda Report and presentation to the Commission would have informed the Commission of the conditional use status of the Church. Yet, Staff didn’t do that. They conveyed no such information to the Commission. In their response here, Staff merely stonewalls by claiming the LBNC proposal excuses them from providing the most simple and basic description of a project site to the Commission. Staff’s omission distorted the Agenda Report, an influential document, that improperly biased the Commission.

The City’s response attempts to deflect from the core issue: Staff provided misleading and incomplete guidance regarding the church’s status as a conditional use, which impacted the Commission’s understanding of the appeal. While the City acknowledges that the church is a legal nonconforming use, it fails to address the critical distinction that any expansion, intensification, or change of a nonconforming use requires a Special Use Permit under Watsonville Municipal Code Section 14-20.050. Staff’s failure to clearly articulate this point in the Commission Agenda Report and during the presentation misled the Planning Commission into believing the Church’s status was irrelevant to the approval of the LBNC project.

Furthermore, the City’s assertion that the church’s conditional use designation is not relevant to the LBNC approval is incorrect, as the introduction of a new LBNC on the church property inherently impacts the existing legal nonconforming use. The City cannot separate the LBNC approval from the underlying zoning requirements affecting the site. By omitting this critical zoning distinction, Staff improperly narrowed the scope of the Commission’s review, preventing a full and 17

Page 962 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL fair assessment of how the project interacts with existing land use regulations. This omission of key information directly undermines the validity of the Commission’s decision and further justifies an appeal.

Staff refers to their response to items number 2 and 6 as additional rebuttals to this item 5. As can be seen in the analysis of items number 2 and 6, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid.

Accordingly, their responses for those items are not valid for this item. 18

Page 963 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

6. City Response:

As indicated by staff during the Planning Commission public hearing on the appeal and as described above in response to item no. 2, a non-conforming use may remain and is not required to obtain a Special Use Permit so long as the use is not increased in size or intensity or modified in location or character. None of those factors apply to the existing church use. In addition, the proposed project is a new use, not an expansion of the church use.

6. Appellant Response:

The City’s response misrepresents the application of Watsonville’s nonconforming uses ordinance by asserting that the church is unaffected by the introduction of the LBNC, despite clear evidence that the project modifies the church's use of the property and therefore triggers review under WMC Section 14-20.050. The ordinance explicitly states that 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. The City’s claim that the LBNC is a “new use” and “not an expansion of the church use” fails to acknowledge that the church property is being fundamentally altered to accommodate the LBNC, affecting the size, intensity, and character of the church’s operations.
19

Page 964 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Additionally, Staff’s erroneous guidance in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation misled the Planning Commission into disregarding the necessary legal analysis of how the LBNC interacts with the church’s legal nonconforming status. Orbach’s assertion that the church was “not being changed” is demonstrably false, as the LBNC alters the functionality and use of the site in ways that directly impact the church’s existing status. By failing to recognize these changes, Staff improperly shielded the project from the required nonconforming use review and the Special Use Permit process, depriving the Commission of a full and accurate analysis. This misrepresentation constitutes a procedural defect that warrants an appeal.

Staff refers to their response in item number 2 as an additional rebuttal to this item 6. As can be seen in the analysis of item number 2, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their response for that item is not valid for this item.
20

Page 965 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

7. City Response: See response to items 2, 5, and 6 above. In addition, the existing church is shown on the project plans that are included in the Planning Commission agenda packet and that are attached here (Attachment 1).

Specifically, the existing church is identified as Parcel 1A in the Project Information and Parcel Map. In addition, the existing church use is identified on page 2 of the Memorandum-Amended dated September 4, 2024, from Sonia M. De La Rosa, Administrative Officer of the County of Monterey (CAO) as existing uses. The Amended Field Data section of Table 1 indicates “APN: 017-172-32 church parking lot and church building site (project site will not impact church site).”

7. Appellant Response:

Staff refers to their responses in item numbers 2, 5, and 6 as additional rebuttals to this item 7. As can be seen in the analysis of item numbers 2, 5, and 6, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid.

Accordingly, their responses at these items are not valid for this item.

Furthermore, the Project Information and Parcel Map referred to by City Staff does not identify the existing church. Instead, it identifies one parcel as a “church parcel.” This is vague and misleading. There are 21

Page 966 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL three parcels in question and they are all “church parcels,” since they are all used by the church for church functions. Additionally, page 2 of the Memorandum-Amended Dated September 24, 2024 from Sonia De La Rosa, is referred to by Staff as providing the relevant information.

Staff’s claim is not true. The information located there does not identify a church use as an existing use. It only refers to a church building. Moreover, it altogether fails to specify that the church use would continue to operate on the site.

The City’s response fails to address the core issue—that Staff omitted critical information about the church’s continued operation in the Commission Agenda Report and the Amended Zoning Clearance Application, thereby misleading the Commission into believing there were no zoning compliance issues to consider. The mere fact that the church is labeled on project plans or referenced in a County memorandum does not excuse Staff’s failure to explicitly state in the Commission Agenda Report that the church is a conditional use under the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP) and would continue as such after the LBNC’s establishment. By failing to acknowledge this key zoning fact, Staff created a false pretense that the project did not require any further zoning compliance review related to the church.

Moreover, the September 4, 2024, Amended Zoning Clearance Application’s failure to disclose the church’s continued use on the site further perpetuated this misleading narrative. The City’s assertion that “the project site will not impact the church site” is demonstrably false, as the LBNC is being sited on church property, directly affecting land use considerations. Under Watsonville’s zoning regulations, any changes in use, intensity, or function of a nonconforming use—such as a church in this zoning district—requires a Special Use Permit. By failing to disclose this issue in the Commission Agenda Report, Staff effectively shielded the project from appropriate regulatory scrutiny, misled the Commission, and compromised the integrity of the approval process. This deliberate omission constitutes a 22

Page 967 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL material procedural defect and further justifies the appeal. 23

Page 968 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

8. City Response: See responses to items 2, 5, 6, and 7 above.

8. Appellant Response:

Staff refers to their response in item numbers 2, 5, 6, and 7 as additional rebuttals to this item 8. As can be seen in the analysis of item numbers 2, 5, 6, and 7, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid.

Accordingly, their responses for these items are not valid for this item.

The City’s response fails to address the fundamental issue—Staff deliberately omitted key zoning information regarding the church’s nonconforming status and lack of a Special Use Permit, misleading the Planning Commission into disregarding critical zoning compliance issues. By failing to explicitly state in the Commission Agenda Report that the church is a legal nonconforming use without a Special Use Permit, Staff created the false impression that the church’s ongoing use was either irrelevant or did not require further zoning review. This omission was not an accident but part of a broader pattern of procedural misrepresentation, as evidenced by Staff’s similar failure to include the Coalition attorney William Seligmann’s letter in the Commission Agenda Report, despite its direct relevance to zoning 24

Page 969 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL compliance issues.

Furthermore, the City’s failure to acknowledge the church’s continued presence on the site distorted the Commission’s understanding of the project. By implying that consideration of the church’s use permit requirements was unnecessary, Staff effectively shielded the project from appropriate scrutiny and prevented a full legal review of its compliance with Watsonville’s zoning regulations. Given that any modifications, expansions, or changes in intensity of a legal nonconforming use require a Special Use Permit under Watsonville Municipal Code Section 14-20.050, Staff’s omission deprived the Commission of the opportunity to assess whether the project was legally compliant. This deliberate misrepresentation constitutes a material procedural defect and provides further justification for overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
25

Page 970 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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 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.
26

Page 971 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL [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 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.
27

Page 972 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

9. City Response: See response to items 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above. In addition, the proposed project is a separate use from the church use and is not an intensification of the church use.

9. Appellant Response:

Staff refers to their responses in item numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as additional rebuttals to this item 9. As can be seen in the analysis of item numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their responses for these items are not valid for this item.

The City’s response is factually incorrect and legally flawed in asserting that the establishment of the LBNC does not intensify the church’s nonconforming use. By removing at least 10,000 square feet from the church’s entitled land area and repurposing it for an entirely new, separate use, the project fundamentally alters the scope, intensity, and operational capacity of the church’s activities.

The City’s argument that the LBNC is a separate use ignores the reality that land allocated to the LBNC is land removed from the church’s entitlement, inherently affecting the church’s ability to function as it did prior to the shelter’s establishment. The notion that such a substantial reduction in land area does not trigger review under Watsonville Municipal Code Section 14-20.050—which requires a Special Use Permit for modifications to a legal nonconforming use—is legally indefensible and represents a failure of competent urban planning.

Furthermore, Staff’s omission of this fundamental change from the Commission Agenda Report and hearing deprived the Planning Commission of the ability to properly evaluate the full impact of the LBNC on the church’s land use entitlement. The City’s response fails to acknowledge that religious land use can evolve rapidly, and there is no guarantee that the church’s needs will remain static, particularly as the 28

Page 973 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL LBNC operates on the property indefinitely. By failing to recognize the obvious intensification of use and the loss of land from the church’s entitlement, Staff misrepresented the legal obligations of the City to require a Special Use Permit before approving the project. This is a significant procedural and legal oversight that further justifies overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
29

Page 974 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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…
Here it can be seen that the nonconforming Church use may only be changed after a Special Use Permit is granted with required findings.

10. City Response: See responses to items 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above.

The LBNC is a new use, separate and distinct from the legal nonconforming church use, and can be approved under Government Code Section 65662 without any consideration of existing uses on the property. Regardless, this allegation is not a basis to grant the appeal.

10. Appellant Response:

Staff refers to their responses in item numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as additional rebuttals to this item 10. As can be seen in the analysis of item numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their responses for these items are not valid for this item.
30

Page 975 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL The City’s response fundamentally misinterprets Watsonville’s nonconforming use ordinance and improperly attempts to separate the LBNC approval from the church’s zoning compliance requirements.

Watsonville Municipal Code Section 14-20.050 explicitly states that 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. This means that any changes to the church’s use must be approved via a Special Use Permit before any additional entitlements—such as the establishment of an LBNC—can be considered. Matt Orbach’s statement that the church could obtain a Special Use Permit “after” the LBNC was established directly contradicts this legal requirement and misled the Commission into believing the sequence of approvals was discretionary rather than mandatory.

Furthermore, the City’s claim that the LBNC is a separate and distinct use that can be approved without consideration of existing uses on the property is legally indefensible. The LBNC directly impacts the church’s entitled land area and operational capacity, and removing land from the church’s entitlement constitutes a modification to the nonconforming use that must be reviewed before project approval. The City's attempt to sidestep this legal requirement by invoking Government Code Section 65662 is misplaced, as state law does not preempt the City’s obligation to follow its own zoning laws for nonconforming uses. The failure to follow the proper approval sequence constitutes a clear procedural defect that invalidates the Planning Commission’s decision, further justifying the appeal.
31

Page 976 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

11. City Response: Staff and the City Attorney’s office accurately explained what a nonconforming use is and advised the Commission of the events that would lead to the church needing to obtain a Special Use Permit, none of which are present with respect to the proposed project. Regardless, this allegation is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

11. Appellant Response:

The City’s response is inadequate and evasive, as it fails to directly address the Appellant’s argument, which focused specifically on City Attorney Mary Anne Wagner’s failure to provide clear and legally sound guidance on the definition and application of nonconforming use regulations. Instead of addressing Wagner’s confusing and contradictory statements, the City’s response attempts to broadly defend both Staff and the City Attorney’s office, despite the fact that the Appellant’s argument was solely about Wagner’s failure to provide competent legal analysis.

Furthermore, the City’s assertion that Staff and the City Attorney “accurately explained” nonconforming use requirements is demonstrably false, as Wagner’s own words indicate uncertainty and a lack of a definitive legal position. The Watsonville Zoning Code provides a clear 32

Page 977 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL legal framework for when a Special Use Permit is required for modifications to a nonconforming use, yet Wagner introduced ambiguity rather than providing a firm legal determination. This misguided and unclear legal guidance created unnecessary confusion for the Planning Commission, leading to a flawed decision-making process. By failing to directly address the Appellant’s concerns regarding Wagner’s statements, the City’s response is incomplete and does not refute the procedural deficiencies that warrant this appeal.
33

Page 978 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

12. City Response: While the LBNC use is allowed by right in the DWSP area, neither the DWSP nor the City’s Zoning Ordinance have any development standards related to a LBNC. The proposed project is not a church use so the applicable standards related to churches are not applicable. Regardless, this allegation is not a basis to grant the appeal.

12. Appellant Response:

The City's response implicitly admits that the LBNC is allowed by right under the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP), yet Staff failed to disclose this fact in the Commission Agenda Report or presentation, misleading the Commission into believing that only Government Code Section 65662 applied. By omitting this key information, Staff misrepresented the regulatory framework governing the project and prevented the Commission from fully understanding its 34

Page 979 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL own local zoning authority. The City's claim that the DWSP and Zoning Ordinance lack development standards for an LBNC is a deflection that does not excuse the failure to acknowledge that the project was already allowed by right under local regulations.

Furthermore, the City’s argument that church-related zoning regulations are irrelevant ignores the fact that the LBNC is being established on church-owned property, which remains a legal nonconforming use subject to Watsonville’s zoning laws. The assertion that “the proposed project is not a church use” oversimplifies the issue—while the LBNC itself is a separate use, its establishment fundamentally alters the land allocation and operational conditions of the church, which should have triggered a Special Use Permit review. By failing to present this information accurately to the Commission, Staff materially misled decision-makers and undermined the transparency of the approval process. This procedural failure is not minor—it directly affected the Commission’s ability to make an informed decision, further justifying the appeal.
35

Page 980 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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 36

Page 981 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 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 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.

13. City Response: The appellant contends that project does not comply with Government Code Section 65662(a), which requires that the LBNC “offer services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.” The ERF-2 grant application was not included in the application materials submitted for the ARP application. However, in reviewing the application, the Zoning Administrator located the ERF-2 grant application on the County of Monterey website and reviewed it for additional details related to the proposed facility and associated services. The grant application includes a detailed summary of services to be provided and services staffing on pages 12-14. Based on this information, the Zoning Administrator determined that the project met the requirements of Government Code Section 65662(a).

13. Appellant Response:

The City's response is fundamentally flawed and exposes a serious procedural deficiency—the Zoning Administrator had to "locate" the 37

Page 982 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL ERF-2 grant application on the County of Monterey’s website rather than receiving it as part of the Zoning Clearance Permit Application. This is absurd and indefensible, considering that Watsonville was a co-applicant for the grant and should have had direct access to the application and its supporting documents. The fact that this critical information was not included in the formal application process demonstrates that the project did not submit a compliant services plan as required under Government Code Section 65662(a), rendering the application incomplete.

Furthermore, the illicit switch from HomeFirst to Community Action Board as the service provider highlights a fundamental failure in the City's due diligence. There is no evidence in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application that Community Action Board was formally identified at the time of approval, nor that their role was evaluated as part of the entitlement process. Instead of requiring clear documentation, Staff improperly relied on vague references to an external grant application and then deflected responsibility by telling the Commission to ask the applicant for clarification during the hearing.

This is a clear violation of legitimate entitlement review procedures.

The applicant is obligated to provide a complete and verifiable application. While it is cosmetically commendable for City Staff to voluntarily go on an Easter egg hunt for undisclosed information, such seeming generosity is actually quite toxic in that it then creates jumbled and unverifiable application documents. The failure to require a services plan within the official application process invalidates the City’s determination of compliance with Government Code Section 65662(a) and further justifies granting this appeal.
38

Page 983 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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 Staff's 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.
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, 39

Page 984 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 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.

14. City Response: Per the project background section above, ARP Application #PP2023-6297 was officially submitted on October 17, 2023, and the City issued a guidance letter on November 29, 2023. At that point, the application was deemed “incomplete” and required a resubmittal to move forward to a second completeness review. The City did not receive a formal resubmittal until July 11, 2024, at which time staff conducted a second formal review of the project application.

Delays between completeness determinations and resubmittals is common for entitlement applications after initial submittals, as preliminary reviews often raise important questions, identify issues, and require additional analysis and design work that can take a significant amount of time to complete prior to resubmittal.

Staff disagrees Appellant’s characterization of statements made by the Zoning Administrator and City Managers. It also appears that some of the Appellant’s concerns are related to statements dealing with the timing of the submittal of the ERF-2 grant application for the LBNC by the County, which occurred well before the submittal of ARP #PP2023-6297. Regardless, this allegation is not a basis to grant the appeal.

14. Appellant Response:

The City’s response fails to acknowledge the gravity of Staff’s false statements and their direct impact on the integrity of the entitlement process. Staff deliberately misrepresented when the zoning permit process began, falsely claiming that it only formally started with the October 17, 2023, submission of ARP Application #PP2023-6297. This 40

Page 985 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL is demonstrably false. As early as February 14, 2023, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors publicly identified Watsonville as the co-applicant, site identifier, and permitting agency for the project.

Furthermore, the August 21, 2023, letter from Roxanne Wilson to Watsonville City Manager Rene Mendez explicitly confirms Watsonville’s role in facilitating the project’s approval process well before the City now claims it began.

By failing to disclose these facts in the Commission Agenda Report and presentation, Staff intentionally misled the Commission and the public, in an attempt to shield their early involvement from scrutiny. The City’s attempt to distance itself from its documented role in site selection and permitting is a deliberate manipulation of the record designed to evade accountability for how the project was handled. This deception is not a procedural formality—it is a fundamental breach of due process and transparency that invalidates the legitimacy of the Commission’s decision.

Additionally, Interim City Manager Vides’ statement in June 2024 that no application had been submitted was a blatant falsehood. The City had already issued two Planning Guidance letters in response to the October 2023 submission, directly contradicting Vides’ public statement. Instead of acknowledging this discrepancy, the City’s response attempts to excuse the misinformation by suggesting there was a "lost in translation" issue. This is an admission that misleading statements were made, whether intentionally or through negligence. The fact that these misstatements were made publicly to the City Council, the media, and the public underscores the seriousness of this issue.

False statements by government officials in an entitlement process compromise the validity of the decision-making process and constitute a violation of due process. Under California law, government decisions must be based on accurate, complete, and transparent information.

Misleading statements—whether made to decision-makers, the public, 41

Page 986 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL or the media—constitute a procedural defect that taints the entire approval process. Relevant state law exists to ensure transparency and public access to government actions. When false statements are made about fundamental aspects of an application process, the entire decision is called into question.

Furthermore, the City’s failure to provide Appellant’s attorney, William Seligmann, with a copy of the October 24, 2023, Zoning Clearance Permit Application further highlights their pattern of withholding critical information. This omission undermined the ability of the Appellant and the public to review and challenge the City’s actions, further violating due process.

In their Agenda Report to the Planning Commission regarding this Appeal, Staff denied that the Watsonville Zoning Administrator and City Managers made the referenced false statements, yet they provided no substantiation for their assertions. Objective evidence was submitted to the Planning Commission by the Appellant that verified that false statements were made. Even with this evidence in hand, Staff now once again denies that the Watsonville Zoning Administrator and the City Managers made the referenced false statements and provide no substantiation for their assertion. Staff has had two opportunities to substantiate their denial and have failed to do so in a public process. This, while promoting an illicit land use entitlement under their authority as City officials. In doing so, Watsonville Planning Department Staffers Justin Meek and Matt Orbach are now making their own false statements on the issue.

Misleading a governing body and the public is not a minor issue—it directly affects the fairness and legality of the approval process. The only appropriate remedy for a decision made under these conditions is to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval and require a full, transparent, and lawful review of the project.
42

Page 987 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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 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.
43

Page 988 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

15. City Response: See response to no. 13 above.

15. Appellant Response:

Staff refers to their response in item number 13 as an additional rebuttal to this item 15. As can be seen in the analysis of item number 13, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their response for that item is not valid for this item.

The City’s response is wholly inadequate, as it fails to address the fundamental flaw in Staff’s analysis—the Zoning Clearance Permit Application did not contain a valid services plan identifying services staffing, nor did it formally designate the Community Action Board as the service provider. Instead of requiring the applicant to submit this critical documentation as part of the application, Staff improperly relied on outdated and unreliable data from the ERF-2 Grant application, which itself had undergone multiple iterations and deviations from the original submittal. The use of an external grant document as a substitute for a formal services plan is procedurally improper and does not satisfy the legal requirements of Government Code Section 65662(a).

Orbach’s statement that the Community Action Board was “identified in the grant application” is logically flawed and does not constitute compliance with the law. An ERF-2 Grant application is not a services plan. A legally valid services plan must include specific, detailed descriptions of how supportive services will be provided to residents, including case management, job training, counseling, medical care, and other direct assistance. The fact that Staff had to reference an external grant application rather than a formally submitted services plan within the Zoning Clearance Permit Application demonstrates a fundamental defect in the application’s completeness and compliance.

Furthermore, at no point was Community Action Board officially identified as the service provider in the Zoning Clearance Permit 44

Page 989 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Application. The record clearly shows that HomeFirst was initially listed as the service provider, and Community Action Board was only approached to fulfill this role on December 5, 2023, well after the application process had begun. This illicit change raises serious concerns about whether the City properly vetted the service provider’s qualifications or if due diligence was conducted at all.

The City’s failure to require a services plan as part of the Zoning Clearance Permit Application constitutes a material procedural defect, as it means the project did not meet a fundamental requirement of Government Code Section 65662(a) at the time of approval. Instead of following standard entitlement review procedures, Staff improperly shifted the burden onto the Commission to seek clarification from the applicant during the hearing, rather than ensuring all necessary documentation was properly submitted and reviewed beforehand.

By failing to rebut these facts and simply referring to their previous response, the City effectively concedes that no actual services plan existed within the Zoning Clearance Permit Application. This is a clear violation of procedural standards and legal requirements, further justifying overturning the Planning Commission’s decision. 45

Page 990 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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. 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.
46

Page 991 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

16. City Response: The item before the Planning Commission on December 3, 2024, was an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Discussion of the Public Records Act was not agendized.

Public Records Act requests are handled by the City Clerk’s office and any concerns related to the production of documents in response to a PRA request should first be addressed to the City Clerk’s office. Public Records Act requests and disputes are not the purview of the Planning Commission. The City did receive a Public Records Act request from William Seligmann dated April 27, 2024. The City provided Mr.

Seligmann with all non-exempt documents that were
responsive to this request. Regardless, this allegation is not a basis to grant the appeal.

16. Appellant Response:

The City’s response is legally flawed and fails to acknowledge the Planning Commission’s authority to address procedural irregularities, including the improper withholding of public documents that directly impacted the entitlement process. City Attorney Mary Anne Wagner’s statement that the Planning Commission hearing was “not the appropriate forum” to discuss a Public Records Act (CPRA) violation is both incorrect and an attempt to prevent the Commission from considering relevant evidence of government misconduct.

Contrary to Wagner’s claim, the Planning Commission absolutely had the authority to direct Staff to provide improperly withheld public records and to consider the City's failure to disclose critical documents when evaluating the legitimacy of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. CPRA violations that impact an active land-use decision are not separate procedural matters but rather a direct concern for any governing body tasked with reviewing the fairness and transparency of the approval process. The City’s argument that CPRA matters are solely the purview of the City Clerk’s office is a misdirection—when records directly impact an appeal, the Commission is not only permitted but obligated to 47

Page 992 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL consider whether material information was improperly withheld.

Furthermore, the City’s claim that all responsive documents were provided is demonstrably false. The record proves that the Zoning Clearance Permit Application was omitted from the CPRA response, even though Planning Guidance letters were included. Additionally, the full ERF-2 Grant Application—containing evidence of Watsonville’s deeper involvement in the project—was also illegally excluded from disclosure. These omissions were not incidental but strategic, as they concealed key facts that would have shaped public discourse and decision-making. The failure to provide complete and accurate records deprived the Appellant and the public of the ability to properly assess the City’s role in the project, creating a fundamental procedural defect.

The City’s response does not refute these facts but instead attempts to deflect responsibility by claiming that CPRA concerns should be handled separately. However, when public records are deliberately withheld in a way that materially affects a land-use decision, it becomes a due process issue, directly relevant to the appeal. The Planning Commission was misled into believing it could not consider this issue, further tainting its decision-making process. Given this clear procedural violation, the Commission’s decision was compromised, further justifying the appeal.
48

Page 993 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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 Hoffman 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 Hoffman. 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 Staff’s claims and undermining the integrity of the Commission's decision-making process.
49

Page 994 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

17. City Response:

As part of the application review, City staff reached out to Caltrans staff to inform them of the proposed work along SR-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.

Appellant claims that characterization of the Applicant’s submittal as “a Building Permit Submittal” or whether there would be a “… future building permit process” was material to the Commission’s decision. It quite simply was not, the issue before the Commission for decision was the Zoning Administrator’s decision related to the application for a LBNC.

A building permit application for the proposed project was not submitted until December 18, 2024.

Regardless, this allegation is not a basis to grant the appeal.

17. Appellant Response:

In the time period up to July 2024, City Staff were in extensive discussions with the Project Applicant as part of the Zoning Clearance Review process. In this time period, the Project Applicant submitted fairly detailed construction plans to the City. It appears, that among the government officials, those plans were nominally termed a “Building Permit Submission” (it is possible, but uncertain that the Project Applicant also submitted a formal building permit application to the City at the same time). It appears that those plans were adequate for obtaining a building permit even though the Zoning Clearance review had not been completed. On July 15, 2024, City Planner Justin Meek sent an email to Caltrans seeking response regarding the Tiny Village 50

Page 995 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Project, and that email included a hyperlink to the “Building Permit Submission” referenced earlier. This context information is significant when considering a number of related factors.
● For the two years up to July 2024, the City had engaged in a repetitive pattern of covertly collaborating with the Project Applicant to discard public safeguards of the City’s Zoning Code to accelerate entitlement and construction of the project. ● City officials made a number of false public statements about critical aspects of the project to conceal the illicit progress of the entitlement.
● City officials had openly engaged in a pattern of withholding relevant public documents from neighboring affected stakeholders in order to prevent those stakeholders from acquiring a functional understanding of what the City officials were doing regarding the project.

It is clear that City Staff was processing the Zoning Clearance Permit Application and a Building Permit approval in parallel. This is further corroborated by email exchanges from July 11-17, 2024 between Roxanne Wilson, and Dignity Moves Melissa Bartolo, Carlos Nuno Espinoza, Robert Ratner, Sarah Federico, Suzi Merriam, and [email protected].

In response to Public Documents Request #24-694, Monterey County provided an email from Roxanne Wilson sent on July 11, 2024 Re “Building Permit Submission: Westview Presbyterian Church, which stated:

To Whom This May Concern:

Please see the Building Permit submission for the development of 34 non-congregate modular units to be used as a low-barrier housing navigation center located at Westview Presbyterian 51

Page 996 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Church. Included on this email are all relevant partners on this project – please reply to all with any follow-up questions. and/or concerns. Thank you.

The email REDACTED the recipients of the communication (See Attachment A). However, in the email dated July 15, 2024 from Justin Meek to Caltrans’ Jacob Hernandez and Paul Guirguis, Meek forwarded this very redacted email that Roxanne Wilson sent. The redacted recipients were [email protected], Robert Ratner, Carlos Nuno Espinoza, Sarah Federico, Melissa Bartolo, and Suzi Merriam.

In a subsequent email dated July 17, 2024, Bartolo asks the group, “Now that you’ve submitted the letter addressing the City of Watsonville’s Guidance Letter, may I ping Suzi to see if they are ready to provide comments to our submission.”
Processing a Building Permit application before issuing the required Zoning Clearance Permit is procedurally improper and inconsistent with standard permitting protocols.

The City of Watsonville’s decision to process a Building Permit for the Westview Presbyterian Church project before issuing a Zoning Clearance Permit represents a blatant circumvention of lawful procedures, directly contradicting statements made by City Staff to the public and Planning Commission. The attached July 11, 2024, email from Monterey County confirms that a Building Permit approval was already in progress at that time. This reveals that Staff, including Matt Orbach, knowingly misled the public and the Commission by withholding the existence of an active building permit approval process while claiming the project was still in ongoing zoning review.

Under Watsonville’s Municipal Code, zoning approvals—including 52

Page 997 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Zoning Clearance—are prerequisites to issuing a Building Permit. The entire purpose of a Zoning Clearance Permit is to determine whether a project complies with local land-use regulations before allowing construction to proceed. By accepting and processing a Building Permit Submission before zoning approvals were granted, the City unlawfully inverted the permitting process, demonstrating clear favoritism toward the applicant and undermining the integrity of its own regulatory framework.

Additionally, in their response to this item, the City now formally declares that the Project Applicant submitted a Building Permit application for the Project on December 18, 2024. The Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision regarding the Zoning Clearance Approval was submitted to the City on December 16, 2024. The Building Permit application was submitted while the Appeal of the Zoning Decision was ongoing. In accepting the Building Permit application, while the Zoning Approval Appeal was going on, Staff violated the City Zoning Code 14-10.1103.
14-10.1103 Stays pending appeals.

The receipt of a written appeal shall stay all actions, or put in abeyance all approvals or permits which may have been granted, pending the decision of the Commission or Council on such appeal. (Ord. 1156-03 C-M, eff. May 22, 2003)
By accepting a Building Permit Application on December 18, 2024, while the appeal of the Zoning Clearance Permit was still active, the City acted in direct violation of standard administrative procedures. A pending appeal automatically places a hold on subsequent permits related to the contested approval, as the outcome of the appeal determines whether the project can proceed. Instead of rejecting or pausing the permit review, the City chose to advance the project prematurely, disregarding due process and further demonstrating its bias in favor of the applicant. 53

Page 998 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL The City’s decision to process a Building Permit before issuing Zoning Clearance approval, coupled with its misrepresentations to the Commission and public, constitutes a serious procedural and legal violation.

Given these clear violations of due process, transparency laws, and municipal regulations, the Planning Commission’s decision cannot stand. The appeal should be granted, and the City must be held accountable for its unlawful actions.
54

Page 999 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

18. City Response: See response to item 13 above.

18. Appellant Response:

Staff refers to their response in item number 13 as the rebuttal to this item 18. As can be seen in the analysis of item number 13, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their response for that item is not valid for this item.

Furthermore, the City’s response is inadequate and does not refute the fundamental issue—Staff failed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65662(a) by relying on an improper document to claim that the LBNC’s service staffing requirement was met. Section 65662(a) explicitly states that a Low-Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) must “offer services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.” The City’s reliance on “Lead Me Home: Monterey County’s Continuum of Care for Emergency Shelters” does not satisfy this requirement because it is merely a set of general standards for emergency shelters and does not constitute an actual services plan specific to this project.

The Zoning Clearance Permit Application fails to identify the specific entity responsible for services staffing, violating a core requirement of 55

Page 1000 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL the law. The application does not formally designate Community Action Board or any other provider as the entity responsible for direct service provision. In fact, the service provider originally listed (HomeFirst) was replaced with Community Action Board after the application was submitted, with no clear documentation establishing the transition. An illicit change in service provider, without an amended and verified services plan, is legally insufficient to meet the requirements of Section 65662(a).

Staff Relied on an Inapplicable Document
● The “Lead Me Home” document does not qualify as a services plan because it is a general framework for emergency shelters, not an operational plan for an LBNC.
● The City has not produced any site-specific services plan that details case management, job training, counseling, medical services, or other supportive measures required by law. ● A valid services plan must include specific operational details, staffing assignments, and service delivery methods for the LBNC in question.

The Zoning Clearance Permit Application Did Not Identify Services Staffing
● The application fails to list a formally designated service provider, in direct violation of Government Code Section 65662(a). ● HomeFirst was originally listed as the provider, but the City later claimed that Community Action Board would assume the
role—without formally updating the application or providing documentation that verified this transition.
● The Zoning Administrator’s reliance on outdated or incomplete information to claim compliance with state law is improper and invalidates the project’s approval.

The City’s Failure to Verify Compliance With State Law is a Procedural 56

Page 1001 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Violation
● The City’s reliance on an unrelated emergency shelter document instead of a valid services plan constitutes a failure to perform due diligence in verifying the project’s legal compliance.
● A project that fails to meet the legal requirements of Government Code Section 65662(a) cannot lawfully be granted zoning clearance.
● Because the City failed to demand an actual services plan, the Planning Commission was misled into approving a project that does not meet state requirements.

The City has not demonstrated compliance with Government Code Section 65662(a), and its reliance on the “Lead Me Home” document is legally invalid. The failure to identify services staffing in the Zoning Clearance Permit Application is a clear violation of the law, making the Planning Commission’s approval legally indefensible. The appeal should be granted on these grounds alone.

The City of Watsonville’s approval of the LBNC violates Government Code Section 65662(a) and is legally invalid. The failure to require a site-specific services plan and the failure to identify a designated service provider render the approval process defective.
57

Page 1002 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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 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.
58

Page 1003 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

19. City Response: Staff correctly identified that the issue on appeal, for the Planning Commission and now the Council, is determining if the Zoning Administrator’s action was correct. That action was based on a determination that the project complied with the four requirements in Government Code Section 65662. In that regard, the Commission and now the Council are considering whether the Zoning Administrator erred in determining that the project complied with the four requirements in Government Code Section 65662 applicable to a LBNC. The Planning Commission also considered each of the points raised in the appeal to the Commission. In fact, the Commission walked through each of the points raised in the appeal letter and asked questions of staff related to those points. The Council should also consider the items raised in the appeal to the Council. However, the legal basis for granting the appeal is whether the project, as proposed, complies with the requirements of section 65662.

19. Appellant Response:

The City’s response is misleading and legally flawed because it falsely asserts that the Planning Commission was limited to reviewing only the four criteria of Government Code Section 65662 when considering the appeal. This is demonstrably false, as the Commission had full authority to consider broader zoning, procedural, and due process issues, including whether the Zoning Administrator’s decision was based on incomplete or misleading information.

City Staff, specifically Matt Orbach, deliberately misrepresented the scope of the Commission’s review by stating:
“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.”
(Transcript: Matt Orbach, 20:09)
59

Page 1004 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL This statement is legally incorrect because the Commission was reviewing an appeal, not just a ministerial checklist. The entire premise of an appeal is to allow a broader review of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, including errors in process, misrepresentations by Staff, and violations of applicable zoning laws.

Furthermore, Government Code Section 65662 does not preempt the City’s ability to enforce its own zoning laws, nor does it prevent the Commission from reviewing whether the Zoning Administrator failed to comply with local zoning regulations that were still applicable. Staff’s claim that Section 65662 completely overrides Watsonville’s Municipal Code is legally indefensible and a clear attempt to limit the Commission’s ability to scrutinize the decision.

The Planning Commission Had the Authority to Consider Broader Issues in the Appeal
● The City’s claim that only the four criteria of Government Code Section 65662 applied is legally false.
● Municipal zoning laws still apply unless explicitly preempted, and nothing in Section 65662 states that cities must ignore their own zoning requirements.
● The Commission had the legal authority to evaluate procedural errors, due process violations, and Staff misrepresentations in addition to reviewing compliance with Section 65662.

Staff’s Manipulation of the Commission’s Scope Invalidates the Process ● By falsely telling the Commission they could only consider four criteria, Staff improperly restricted the scope of the appeal hearing.
● This manipulation prevented the Commission from fully considering the Appellant’s concerns, including issues related to zoning compliance, procedural defects, and the failure to provide a valid services plan under Section 65662(a).
60

Page 1005 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL ● Decisions made under false legal pretenses are inherently flawed and subject to appeal and judicial review.

By falsely claiming that the Commission could only consider four criteria under Section 65662, Staff misled the Commission, improperly limited the appeal’s scope, and tainted the decision-making process. This constitutes a procedural defect that invalidates the approval.

The Council must grant the appeal and reject the Planning Commission’s decision due to the fundamental errors in Staff’s legal interpretation and the improper restriction of the Commission’s review authority.
61

Page 1006 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.

20. City Response: Appellant claims that the Commission should have continued the hearing on the appeal to review voluminous documentation submitted to the Commission “over an hour prior to the Planning Commission ….” However, the appellant had ample time to provide information to the Commission and did so in a 14-page appeal application. The Commission was not required to continue the meeting to consider this additional submittal by Marta Bulaich. The “Rebuttal” is a 16-page document that was submitted at 4:52 p.m. on the day of the hearing. It is attached hereto as Attachment 18. This email, along with the 402-page “Folio” document submitted at 4:02 p.m. on the day of the hearing, were included in the updated public comment attachment emailed to the Planning Commissioners at 5:13 p.m. on the day of the hearing. See response to item 30 below for additional information.

20. Appellant Response:

In the City’s response, Staff asserts that the Appellant had ample time to provide information to the Commission and that the Appellant did so in the Appeal document. Staff’s assertion doesn’t respond to the issue at hand. The Rebuttal was written to respond to the Agenda Report written by Staff. The Rebuttal was necessary because Staff’s Agenda Report was saturated with false analysis and critical omissions. 62

Page 1007 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL The Appellant had access to the Agenda Report at least 72 hours before the Commission Meeting started. However, the amount of necessary corrective response precluded submission of the Rebuttal to the Commission sooner than was done.

The City’s response attempts to excuse the Planning Commission’s failure to properly review and consider the Appellant’s Rebuttal by shifting blame onto the Appellant for the timing of the submission.

However, the City fails to acknowledge that the Commission had full discretion to request additional time to review the document, as it had done in the past, and that the failure to do so constitutes a procedural failure that undermines the validity of the decision.

The Planning Commission Had Discretion to Continue the Hearing but Failed to Exercise It
● The Commission previously exercised discretion to extend review time on November 19, 2024, but refused to do so in this case, despite the complexity and importance of the Rebuttal.
● The 16-page Rebuttal directly addressed errors in Staff’s analysis and was referenced multiple times during the Appellant’s presentation. The Commission had an obligation to engage with these counter arguments before making a final determination. ● Failing to grant additional time for review constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision that deprived the Appellant of a fair hearing.
● The Planning Commission cannot justify ignoring substantive evidence simply because it was submitted on the day of the hearing—especially when that evidence directly refuted Staff’s claims.

The Commission's Failure to Consider the Rebuttal Violates Due Process ● A fundamental requirement of due process is that
63

Page 1008 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL decision-makers must fairly consider all relevant evidence before rendering a decision.
● By failing to thoroughly review the Rebuttal, the Planning Commission denied the Appellant’s right to a fair and complete review process, further tainting the legitimacy of its decision. ● Government agencies cannot arbitrarily ignore evidence simply because it was submitted late in the process—particularly when that evidence addresses major errors in the Staff’s report.

The City’s attempt to excuse the Commission’s failure to review the Rebuttal is insufficient and does not justify the Planning Commission’s disregard for critical evidence. The failure to request additional time for review, despite having done so in prior cases, demonstrates an arbitrary and inconsistent application of procedural discretion.

Given the failure of the Commission to properly consider the Rebuttal, the appeal must be granted, and the decision must be invalidated due to procedural defects.

Staff refers to their response in item number 30 as the rebuttal to this item 20. As can be seen in the analysis of item number 30, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their response for that item is not valid for this item.
64

Page 1009 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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, 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. City Response: Appellant claims that the Commission should have continued the hearing on the appeal to review voluminous documentation submitted to the Commission “within two hours prior to the Planning Commission ….” The “Folio,” also called a “Collection of Data and Documents Highlighting Watsonville’s Improper Zoning Procedure for the Tiny Village,” is a 402-page document that was sent to the Commission via email by Marta Bulaich at 4:02 p.m. on the day of the Commission hearing (December 3, 2024). The “Folio” is included in pages 68-512 of Attachment 15. However, the appellant had ample time to provide information to the Commission and did so in a 14-page appeal application. The Commission was not required to continue the meeting to consider this additional submittal. This late mail, along with the 16-page “Rebuttal” document submitted by Marta Bulaich at 4:52 p.m. on the day of the hearing, were included in the updated public comment attachment emailed to the Planning Commissioners at 5:13 p.m. on the day of the hearing. See response to item 30 below for additional information.

21. Appellant Response:

In the City’s response, Staff asserts that the Appellant had ample time to provide information to the Commission and that the Appellant did so in 65

Page 1010 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL the Appeal document. Staff’s assertion doesn’t respond to the issue at hand. The Folio was written to respond to the Agenda Report written by Staff. The Folio was necessary because Staff’s Agenda Report was saturated with false analysis and critical omissions.

The Appellant had access to the Agenda Report at least 72 hours before the Commission Meeting started. However, the amount of necessary corrective response precluded submission of the Folio to the Commission sooner than was done.

The City’s response attempts to excuse the Planning Commission’s failure to properly review and consider the Appellant’s Folio by shifting blame onto the Appellant for the timing of the submission. However, the City fails to acknowledge that the Commission had full discretion to request additional time to review the document, as it had done in the past, and that the failure to do so constitutes a procedural failure that undermines the validity of the decision.

The City’s response attempts to justify the Planning Commission’s failure to properly evaluate the Folio by arguing that it was submitted “within two hours” before the hearing. However, the City fails to acknowledge that the Commission had full discretion to request additional time to review the material—just as it had done on November 19, 2024. The Folio contained critical evidence, including video clips, that directly demonstrated Staff’s misleading statements to the City Council and the public. By disregarding this documentation and rushing to a decision, the Commission failed to conduct a fair and complete review, violating due process and tainting the validity of its decision.

The Planning Commission Had the Authority to Request Additional Time but Failed to Do So
● The Commission previously exercised discretion to extend review time on November 19, 2024, demonstrating that it had the ability 66

Page 1011 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL to do so in this case.
● The Folio was not just a lengthy document—it was a
compilation of critical evidence, including video clips, that directly refuted Staff’s claims.
● A government body reviewing an appeal has a duty to consider all relevant evidence before making a final decision. By refusing to request additional time, the Commission deliberately ignored evidence that could have changed the outcome.

The Commission’s Failure to Review the Folio Violates Due Process ● A fundamental requirement of due process is that
decision-makers must fairly consider all relevant evidence before making a determination.
● By failing to properly evaluate the Folio, the Commission denied the Appellant the right to a full and fair review, undermining the legitimacy of the appeal process.
● The City cannot justify ignoring substantive evidence simply because it was submitted on the day of the hearing—especially when that evidence directly refuted Staff’s misleading statements.

The City’s attempt to justify the Commission’s failure to review the Folio is insufficient and does not excuse the failure to consider material evidence. By refusing to grant additional time for review, despite having done so in past cases, the Commission acted arbitrarily and inconsistently.

Given the Commission’s failure to properly evaluate the Folio, the appeal must be granted, and the decision must be invalidated due to procedural defects.

Staff refers to their response in item number 30 as the rebuttal to this item 21. As can be seen in the analysis of item number 30, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their 67

Page 1012 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL response for that item is not valid for this item.
68

Page 1013 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

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.
i. 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 system, the Appeal here we don't really have a way of certifying the facts, so we have dueling facts.”
69

Page 1014 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 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]

22. City Response: The statements of Vice Chair Radin included in the appeal are taken out of context and do not support the contention that the Vice Chair was not a fair and impartial decision maker at the hearing.

The record shows that Vice Chair asked staff to walk through each of the grounds for the appeal, allowing the Commissioners an opportunity 70

Page 1015 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL to ask questions of staff related to each ground, and inviting discussion on each of the grounds for the appeal.

22. Appellant Response:

The City’s response is inadequate and fails to address the fundamental issue—Vice Chair Peter Radin demonstrated bias, procedural evasion, and a lack of due diligence in evaluating the Appellant’s claims, thereby violating the principles of due process and a fair hearing. The City’s assertion that Radin “allowed Commissioners to ask questions” does not refute the fact that Radin actively undermined the legitimacy of the appeal by attempting to dismiss concerns without fully evaluating the evidence.

Radin’s Statement About "Telescoping the Process" Demonstrates Intent to Expedite Rather Than Evaluate
● Radin’s statement that "an easy way to dispense with some of this" would be to define the entitlement review process more narrowly suggests an intent to limit the scope of review rather than conduct a thorough examination of the facts.
● The term "telescoping the process" is widely understood to mean condensing or rushing a procedure by skipping or abbreviating critical steps. In the context of a land-use appeal, this is highly inappropriate, as it indicates an intent to dismiss valid concerns rather than ensure proper scrutiny of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.
● This demonstrates a predisposition to move the process along quickly rather than fairly assess whether Staff engaged in procedural violations or misrepresentations.

Radin’s “Dueling Facts” Statement Demonstrates a Lack of Rigor in Fact-Finding
● Radin’s claim that the Commission was faced with “dueling facts” 71

Page 1016 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL and had no way of certifying them is false and demonstrates a lack of engagement with the evidence.
● The Folio, which contained video evidence of City officials making misleading statements, was available to the Commission and was referenced during the Appellant’s presentation.
● Instead of engaging with this clear documentation, Radin dismissed the dispute as a “he said, she said” scenario. Given the substantiating evidence submitted by the Appellant as to what happened, Radin’s assessment was false. Radin refused to examine the evidence to settle the issue, which was an improper approach for a quasi-judicial body charged with resolving factual disputes.
● A fair and impartial decision-maker would have sought to resolve factual discrepancies, not merely acknowledge their existence and move on without resolution.

Radin’s Failure to Ask Clarifying Questions Shows Negligence in Evaluating the Appeal
● Radin expressed confusion about key appeal issues, including the Caltrans correspondence and CPRA violations. However, he failed to ask clarifying questions of the Appellant, despite having the opportunity to do so.
● When Orbach directed him to ask the Appellant about the CPRA issue, Radin failed to follow through, leaving a critical procedural failure unaddressed.
● A quasi-judicial body has a duty to clarify issues and seek additional information when necessary. Radin’s failure to do so demonstrates a lack of diligence in his role.

The City’s Response Fails to Address the Specific Allegations of Bias and Procedural Evasion
● The City dismisses the concerns as “statements taken out of 72

Page 1017 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL context” but provides no substantive refutation of the claims. ● Allowing Commissioners to ask questions does not negate the fact that Radin actively undermined the importance of the appeal and failed to engage with key factual disputes.
● The City’s response does not address why Radin failed to ask the Appellant for clarification on the CPRA issue, nor does it explain why he ignored video evidence contained in the Folio that could have resolved factual disputes.

The City’s response fails to rebut the fundamental issue—Vice Chair Radin engaged in procedural evasion, failed to seek clarification on key issues, and dismissed the Appellant’s concerns without properly reviewing available evidence.

Given these clear violations of due process and fair hearing principles, the appeal must be granted, and the Commission’s decision must be overturned due to procedural defects and lack of impartiality. 73

Page 1018 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

23. Failure of Planning Commissioner Dan Dodge to critically examine the Appeal process.
a. Commissioner Dodge deferred to Staff for guidance.
[Transcript: Dan Dodge: 1:31:01] So, I may ask the City Attorney what I’m hearing what I’m hearing is that you say that Staff is not erroneous in determining a low-barrier navigation center. Is that correct?
b. Dodge’s other comments almost totally consisted of an interactive dialogue with Roxanne Wilson discussing the social benefits of homeless shelters and support services. The information from that discussion had certain informational value in a general sense but did not address or respond to the issue of the Agenda item. That issue was mainly whether the Zoning Administrator erroneously approved the Zoning Clearance Permit Application.
c. Dodge also inquired about the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) letter and asked Wilson to comment on the letter. [Transcript: Dan Dodge: 1:22:07] We've seen some documentation familiar with the Department of Housing the Community Development.

You receive some information to them, from them, pertaining to the state law regarding low-barrier navigation centers. Can you comment on that, on the on that application of the low-barrier navigation center, and how this state law applies for this?
Wilson responded:
[Transcript: Roxanne Wilson: 1:22:39] Yes. So as I mentioned earlier, this project was specifically designed to fit that definition. Inside of the application to the state, we did call it a housing navigation center. It's a cultural difference, but the technical term is a low-barrier navigation center. The State of California did pass a law, as mentioned by Matt earlier, that allowed these projects to be “by right,” and it's a little different from traditional emergency shelter, which is why they I believe 74

Page 1019 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL that the state had made it “by right” is because it's not just to give somebody a safe place to sleep for the evening. The intention is to wrap them with services and get them housed so they are no longer homeless, and that is our goal. We want to get people off the levee, into homes and into, you know, the rest on to of the rest of their lives.

Wilson’s response is flawed. Contrary to her statement, the State has legislation that extends “by right” to both emergency shelters and LBNCs. Regarding the HCD letter, Wilson didn’t respond to the assertions in the letter and instead mostly described what her department does with support services for homeless people.

23. City Response: Appellant lists questions Commissioner Dodge asked of staff and the appellant in support of Appellant’s contention that Commissioner Dodge “failed” to “critically examine the Appeal process.” However, the quotes included in the appeal are taken out of context. In addition, Commissioners are free to ask questions of staff and the applicant or the applicant team. Commissioner Dodge has access to all of the information in the agenda packet and was free to ask questions as the Commissioner saw fit.

23. Appellant Response:

The City’s response fails to refute the fundamental issue—Commissioner Dan Dodge failed to engage in any substantive examination of the Appellant’s claims and instead deferred to Staff and the project proponent, Roxanne Wilson, rather than critically evaluating the validity of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The City’s argument that Dodge was “free to ask questions” does not address the concern that he failed to direct any critical questions toward the actual subject of the appeal—whether the Zoning Clearance Permit was lawfully approved.

Moreover, City Attorney Mary Anne Wagner misled Dodge, reinforcing his deference to Staff rather than allowing for an independent and fair 75

Page 1020 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL evaluation of the appeal.

Dodge Deferred to Staff Instead of Independently Evaluating the Appeal ● Dodge’s question to City Attorney Wagner—asking whether Staff had made an erroneous determination—demonstrates blind
deference to Staff rather than an independent analysis of the appeal.
● Instead of scrutinizing Staff’s legal interpretation, Dodge simply sought affirmation from the City Attorney, who had already demonstrated incoherence and incompetence regarding the project.
● A Planning Commissioner’s duty is not to take Staff’s word at face value but to evaluate whether the decision was made lawfully and fairly. Dodge failed to do this.

Wagner Misled Dodge by Providing a Mischaracterized Legal Justification
● Dodge relied on Wagner’s legal guidance to validate Staff’s conclusions rather than questioning the legal and procedural flaws in the approval process.
● Wagner failed to clarify that the Planning Commission had full discretion to evaluate procedural errors and Staff
misrepresentations, not just the four criteria under Government Code Section 65662.
● By misleading Dodge into believing that the Zoning
Administrator’s decision was correct without requiring a critical review of the evidence, Wagner enabled Dodge’s failure to engage in an independent analysis of the appeal.

Dodge’s Focus on the Social Benefits of Homeless Services Was Irrelevant to the Appeal’s Legal Merits
● The appeal was not about whether homeless services are 76

Page 1021 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL beneficial—it was about whether the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the permit complied with applicable law.
● Dodge engaged in an extended dialogue with Roxanne Wilson about the importance of homeless services rather than focusing on whether the Zoning Clearance Permit met legal requirements. ● This diversion of focus demonstrates that Dodge did not critically examine the appeal process but instead used his time to discuss policy goals unrelated to the legal validity of the project approval.

Dodge’s Inquiry About the HCD Letter Failed to Address the Appeal’s Core Concerns
● Dodge asked Wilson to comment on how state law applies to low-barrier navigation centers, but he failed to challenge her statements or verify their accuracy.
● Wilson’s response contained a fundamental inaccuracy—she implied that only low-barrier navigation centers are “by right” when, in fact, state law extends “by right” status to both emergency shelters and LBNCs.
● Dodge failed to follow up on this inconsistency or critically assess Wilson’s statements, demonstrating a lack of engagement with the actual legal and procedural concerns raised in the appeal.

The City’s Response Does Not Address the Core Issue—Dodge’s Lack of Critical Inquiry and Wagner’s Role in Misleading Him ● The City’s claim that “Commissioners are free to ask questions” does not excuse the fact that Dodge failed to ask any meaningful questions that challenged Staff’s conclusions.
● Dodge had access to all of the information in the agenda packet but failed to engage with it in a meaningful way. ● Simply having the opportunity to ask questions does not absolve a Commissioner of the responsibility to critically analyze an appeal. Dodge failed to exercise that responsibility, and Wagner 77

Page 1022 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL actively facilitated this failure by misrepresenting the Planning Commission’s scope of review.

The Planning Commission Has a Quasi-Judicial Responsibility to Evaluate Evidence Fairly
● As a quasi-judicial body, the Planning Commission must act as an impartial fact-finder, not merely as a rubber stamp for Staff recommendations.
● Dodge’s failure to challenge or critically analyze the appeal demonstrates that he did not fulfill this responsibility, further tainting the decision-making process.
● Courts have ruled that administrative decisions must be based on a fair and complete evaluation of evidence, and failure to critically assess an appeal can render a decision legally vulnerable.

As Staff states, Dodge had access to the Agenda Report by at least 72 hours before the Commission Meeting. However, the Agenda Report was saturated with false analysis and critical omissions. This defect of the Agenda Report required the Appellant to prepare extensive responses to the defects. Due to the limited time window available for creating such extensive responses, the Rebuttal and Folio were submitted only two hours before the Commission started. The Folio and Rebuttal contained information that was not in the Agenda Report and Dodge had no viable way of competently studying it within the timespan of the Commission meeting.

The City’s response fails to justify Dodge’s lack of engagement with the legal and procedural issues raised in the appeal. By deferring to Staff, focusing on unrelated policy discussions, failing to challenge inconsistencies in Wilson’s statements, and being misled by Wagner’s legal mischaracterizations, Dodge did not fulfill his role as an independent decision-maker.

Given these clear failures in due process and proper fact-finding, the 78

Page 1023 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL appeal must be granted, and the Commission’s decision must be invalidated due to its reliance on incomplete and uncritical review. 79

Page 1024 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

24. Failure of Planning Commissioner Lucy Rojas to critically examine the Appeal process.

Commissioner Rojas deferred to Staff for guidance and was confused about the Zoning Clearance Permit Application.
a. Rojas did not understand the procedural process, conflating the ERF-2 Grant Application with the Zoning Clearance Permit Application:
[Transcript: Lucy Rojas 52:30] Vice Chairman, I wanted to also point out to you that in the Grant Application that we have a copy of page 13 of 18, there's a complete staffing list for the project. b. Rojas did not recognize the gravity of Staff’s withholding documents in violation of the California Public Records Act. Nor did she acknowledge the valid remedies available to address the defect by Staff.
[Transcript: Lucy Rojas: 38:12] My question is so one of the complaints that's that came in the appeal letter mentions that the staff improperly withheld critical public documents from attorney through the CPRA process. So my question is that it's clear to me, based on staff response, that an appeal of the CPRA process is not appropriate under this ______tonight. [Emphaseis added]

24. City Response: Appellant contends that Commissioner Rojas deferred to staff for guidance and was confused about the Zoning Clearance Permit Application. The quotes in the appeal are taken out of context and do not support the contention that Commissioner Rojas “failed” to “critically examine the Appeal process.” In addition, with respect to the Public Records Act item please see response to item no. 16 above. Regardless, there is no indication that Commissioner Rojas exhibited impermissible bias at the hearing.

24. Appellant Response:
80

Page 1025 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL The City’s response is inadequate and fails to refute the fundamental issue—Commissioner Lucy Rojas failed to meaningfully engage with the procedural and legal issues raised in the appeal, demonstrated confusion about the Zoning Clearance Permit Application, and improperly deferred to Staff instead of critically evaluating their claims.

Her failure to distinguish between the ERF-2 Grant Application and the Zoning Clearance Permit Application, along with her dismissal of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) violations, reveals a lack of due diligence in assessing the legitimacy of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.

Rojas Conflated the ERF-2 Grant Application With the Zoning Clearance Permit Application
● Rojas mistakenly cited the ERF-2 Grant Application as evidence that a staffing plan existed for the project.
● This was a fundamental error because the ERF-2 Grant
Application was not part of the Zoning Clearance Permit Application and could not be used to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 65662(a).
● The fact that she relied on the grant application instead of verifying whether the Zoning Clearance Permit contained a staffing plan demonstrates that she did not understand the procedural distinctions at issue in the appeal.

Rojas Failed to Recognize the Significance of the City’s CPRA Violations ● Rojas failed to acknowledge the serious implications of Staff withholding critical public records in violation of the California Public Records Act.
● Instead of investigating the issue or seeking clarification on potential remedies, she immediately accepted Staff’s position that CPRA violations were not relevant to the hearing, demonstrating a failure to engage with the due process concerns raised in the 81

Page 1026 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL appeal.
● Public records violations directly impact the integrity of the appeal process because they prevent full public scrutiny of government actions. By dismissing the issue outright, Rojas ignored a key procedural defect that undermined the legitimacy of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.

The City’s Response Does Not Address Rojas’ Lack of Critical Engagement
● The City claims that her statements were “taken out of context” but does not explain how they were misrepresented. ● Simply participating in the hearing does not absolve a Commissioner from the responsibility of critically analyzing the issues before them.
● Rojas failed to conduct an independent review of the appeal’s core issues, instead deferring to Staff and making procedural errors that demonstrate a lack of engagement.

The Planning Commission Has a Duty to Evaluate the Evidence Fairly and Accurately
● As a quasi-judicial body, the Planning Commission must base its decisions on a thorough and accurate evaluation of the record. ● By failing to distinguish between different applications, dismissing public records violations, and deferring to Staff without independent analysis, Rojas failed to uphold this duty.

The City’s response does not address the fundamental
issue—Commissioner Rojas’ procedural confusion and deference to Staff resulted in a failure to critically evaluate the appeal on its merits.

Her failure to distinguish between different applications, her misunderstanding of public records violations, and her unquestioning reliance on Staff’s guidance demonstrate that she did not fulfill her duty 82

Page 1027 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL as an impartial decision-maker.

Given these clear failures in due process and proper fact-finding, the appeal must be granted, and the Commission’s decision must be invalidated due to its reliance on incomplete and uncritical review.

Staff refers to their response in item number 16 as a rebuttal to this item

24. As can be seen in the analysis of item number 16, the City’s reasoning there is demonstrated to be invalid. Accordingly, their response for that item is not valid for this item.
83

Page 1028 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

25. Failure of Brando Sencion to comment on the Appeal. a. The lack of comment is evidence of evasion by the Commissioner of responding to and resolving important public policy issues raised in the Appeal that are not addressed in the resolution that was voted on. The Commissioner’s evasion is adequate basis to appeal the decision to the City Council for resolving those issues.

25. City Response: There is no evidence to support the contention that a lack of comment by Commissioner Sencion is “evasion.” Commissioners are free to ask questions and comment on the project/appeal or not. Commissioner Sencion did ask clarifying questions of staff. Regardless, there is no indication that Commissioner Sencion exhibited impermissible bias at the hearing.

25. Appellant Response:

The City’s response fails to acknowledge that Commissioner Brando Sencion’s lack of engagement with the appeal process constituted a failure to fulfill his duty as a decision-maker. While the City argues that Commissioners are “free to ask questions and comment” or not, this does not absolve them of their responsibility to engage in a substantive review of the issues presented in the appeal. Sencion’s failure to comment on any of the core issues raised in the appeal demonstrates an abdication of his quasi-judicial role, depriving the public of a meaningful review.

Commissioners Have a Duty to Engage With the Appeal Process ● The Planning Commission is not a passive body; it is required to act as a fact-finding and decision-making entity.
● Silence on the appeal is not a neutral position—it is a failure to engage with the fundamental purpose of the hearing, which was to review the validity of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. ● Sencion’s lack of comment on critical issues, such as procedural 84

Page 1029 of 1242 ends

CATALINA TORRES RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL violations, CPRA violations, and the legitimacy of the Zoning Clearance Permit, signals an evasion of responsibility.

The City’s Argument That Commissioners Are “Free” to Comment or Not Is Legally Insufficient
● The Planning Commission functions as a quasi-judicial body, meaning its members are required to actively engage with the evidence and legal arguments presented.
● The appeal raised multiple legal and procedural defects that warranted scrutiny, yet Sencion did not engage with these concerns.
● The City’s response fails to explain how a Commissioner can fulfill their duty if they choose to remain silent on the key issues under review.

Sencion’s Failure to Engage Leaves Key Public Policy Issues Unresolved ● The appeal process serves to address public concerns and ensure that government actions comply with legal requirements. ● By failing to comment, Sencion effectively ignored the substantive public policy issues raised in the appeal, leaving them unresolved. ● A Commissioner’s refusal to engage with an appeal is not neutrality—it is a procedural failure that denies the public a meaningful opportunity for redress.

The City’s Response Does Not Address Whether Sencion’s Silence Impacted the Legitimacy of the Decision
● The City’s response states that there is “no evidence” of evasion, yet it does not explain why a Commissioner would remain silent during a critical review process.
● If a Commissioner refuses to comment on an appeal, it raises serious concerns about whether they are fulfilling their role in ensuring a fair and thorough review of the facts.
85

Page 1030 of 1242 ends

Watsonville City CouncilMarch 11, 2025

Watsonville City Council
March 11, 2025