whereas - City of Watsonville

cityofwatsonville.org

whereas - City of Watsonville

AGENDA

CITY OF WATSONVILLE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Motto: "Opportunity Through Diversity; Unity Through Cooperation."

Mission Statement: "The City of Watsonville is dedicated to improving the economic vitality, safety & living environment for the

culturally rich Watsonville community, by providing leadership for the achievement of community goals & high quality, responsive

public services."

Mayor Luis Alejo, Council Member, District 2

Mayor Pro Tempore Nancy A. Bilicich, District 7

Manuel Quintero Bersamin, Council Member, District 1

Antonio Rivas, Council Member, District 3

Kimberly Petersen, Council Member, District 4

Greg Caput, Council Member, District 5

Emilio Martinez, Council Member, District 6

Carlos J. Palacios, City Manager

Alan J. Smith, City Attorney

Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk

CIVIC PLAZA COUNCIL CHAMBERS

275 MAIN STREET, 4 th FLOOR, 6 TH LEVEL PARKING

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

INTERPRETATION SERVICES

Spanish language interpretation is available

Americans with Disabilities Act

The Council Chambers is an accessible facility. If you wish to attend a meeting and you will require

assistance in order to attend and/or participate, please call the City Clerk's Office at least five (5)

days in advance of the meeting to make arrangements. The City of Watsonville TDD number is (831)

763-4075.

Meetings are televised live on Charter Cable Communications Channel 70.

For information regarding this agenda or interpretation services, please call the City Clerk's Office at (831) 768-3040.


AGENDA

CITY OF WATSONVILLE

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

February 23, 2010

City Council Chambers

275 Main Street, 4th Floor

5:30 P.M.

1.0 CLOSED SESSION

(City Council Conference Room, 275 Main Street, 4th Floor)

(a) Public Comments regarding the Closed Session agenda will only be accepted by the City

Council at this time.

(b) Closed Session Announcement

The City Council will now recess to discuss those items listed on the Closed Session

Statement attached to the Agenda.

6:30 P.M. SESSION

Anyone Addressing the City Council is asked to fill out a blue card and leave it at the podium for

recording purposes

(IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY ACTION APPEARING ON THIS AGENDA IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING DESCRIBED ON

THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO, OR AT,

THE PUBLIC MEETING.)

1.1 ROLL CALL

2.0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3.0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC & CITY COUNCIL

(This time is set aside for members of the general public to address the Council on any item not on the Council

Agenda, which is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. No action or discussion shall be

taken on any item presented except that any Council Member may respond to statements made or questions

asked, or may ask questions for clarification. All matters of an administrative nature will be referred to staff.

All matters relating to Council will be noted in the minutes and may be scheduled for discussion at a future

meeting or referred to staff for clarification and report. Any Council Member may place matters brought up

under Oral Communications on a future agenda. ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT A BLUE

CARD & LEAVE IT AT THE TABLE DESIGNATED NEAR THE PODIUM, GO TO THE PODIUM AND

ANNOUNCE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN ACCURATE RECORD FOR THE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING.)

3.1 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

3.2 PRESENTATION BY MOUNT MADONNA SCHOOL STUDENTS REGARDING

PLASTIC AWARENESS (10 Minutes)

4.0 CONSENT AGENDA

All items appearing on the Consent Agenda are recommended actions which are considered to be routine and will be

acted upon as one consensus motion. Any items removed will be considered immediately after the consensus

motion. The Mayor will allow public input prior to the approval of the Consent Agenda.

4.1 MOTION APPROVING & FILING MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2010, FEBRUARY

4 & FEBRUARY 9, 2010

O:\Agendas\2010\CC022310.Docx

2/18/2010 5:04 PM

1


4.2 MOTION APPROVING REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS

4.3 RESOLUTION REJECTING CLAIM FOR DAMAGES:

(a) Robert Gould (Date of Occurrence: July 29, 2009)

(b) Christina Morales (Date of Occurrence: January 15, 2010)

4.4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR

$12,000 TO CALRECYCLE (FORMERLY CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE

MANAGEMENT BOARD) FOR THE TIRE RECYCLING PROGRAM GRANT

(Recommended by Public Works & Utilities Director

--Report

--Resolution

5.0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

6.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES, & APPEALS

6.1 CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PP2009-286), FILED

BY COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA) OF SANTA CRUZ

COUNTY, FROM (R-LD) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO (CG) GENERAL

COMMERCIAL, REZONING FROM (R-1) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO

(CN) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, MAJOR VARIANCE TO PARKING

DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A

PROPERTY LOCATED AT 813 FREEDOM BOULEVARD (APN: 016-143-09)

(Recommended by Interim Community Development Director)

(a) Staff Report

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

(c)

(d)

Public Hearing

Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures for

Application No. (PP 2009-286) Filed by CASA (Court Appointed Special

Advocates) of Santa Cruz County, Property Owner, for General Plan

Amendment & Major Variance to the Parking Distance Requirement

(e) Resolution Approving Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to Watsonville 2005

General Plan to Re-Designate APN: 016-143-09 Located at 813 Freedom

Boulevard, Watsonville, California, from (R-LD) Residential Low Density to

(CG) General Commercial; & Directing Changes to be Made on Land Use

Diagram of Watsonville 2005 General Plan of City of Watsonville

(f)

(g)

7.0 OLD BUSINESS

Resolution Approving Major Variance (PP2009-286) to Parking Distance

Requirement for Property Located at 813 Freedom Boulevard

Ordinance Introduction Approving Rezoning of APN: 016-143-09 For

Property Located at 813 Freedom Boulevard, Watsonville, California, from

R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) &

Directing Changes to be Made on Zoning Map of City of Watsonville

7.1 CITY FLAG (Recommended by City Clerk)

(a) Staff Report

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

(c) Public Input

(d) Appropriate Motion

O:\Agendas\2010\CC022310.Docx

2/18/2010 5:04 PM

2


8.0 NEW BUSINESS

8.1 SUPPORT OF LOCAL TAXPAYER, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND TRANSPORTATION

PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 (Requested by Mayor Alejo & Council Member

Petersen)

(a) Staff Report

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

(c)

(d)

Public Input

Resolution Declaring its Support of Local Taxpayer, Public Safety,

& Transportation Protection Act of 2010

8.2 GRANT APPLICATION IN AMOUNT OF $5 MILLION TO STATE OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION UNDER

PROPOSITION 84 FOR RAMSAY PARK RENOVATION (Recommended by

Parks & Community Services Director)

(a) Staff Report

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

(c)

(d)

Public Input

Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application for $5 Million for

Renovation of Ramsay Park in Statewide Park Program Grant Funds

through State of California Department Of Parks & Recreation under

Proposition 84

8.3 CENTRAL COAST BROADBAND CONSORTIUM & GET CONNECTED!

(Recommended by Administrative Services Director & Requested by Mayor Alejo)

(a) Staff Report

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

(c) Public Input

(d) Resolution Declaring Its Support & Joining With California Emerging

Technology Fund (CETF) in Launching & Promoting Get Connected! a

Public Awareness & Education Program Designed to Reach California

Residents that Have Not Yet Adopted Broadband Technology

8.4 EMERGENCY ITEMS ADDED TO AGENDA

10.0 ADJOURNMENT

Pursuant to Section 54954.2(a)(1) of the Government Code of the State of California, this agenda

was posted at least 72 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting at a public place freely accessible

to the public 24 hours a day.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda

packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office (275 Main Street, 4 th Floor) during

normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Watsonville website at

www.ci.watsonville.ca.us subject to staff’s ability to post the document before the meeting.

O:\Agendas\2010\CC022310.Docx

2/18/2010 5:04 PM

3


MINUTES

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

January 26, 2010

City of

Watsonville

4:30 P.M. Council

Chambers

275 Main Street,

4 th Floor

CONTENTS

4.1 Accept/File Minutes

4.2 Rpt Disbursements

4.3 Accept/Nov & Dec 2009

Invest Report

4.4 Reso 7-10 Adopt &

Confirm Invest Policy

4.5 Reso 8-10 Approve

Plans/Cal Bids Green

Valley Constr

4.6 Reso 9-10 Accept

Completion 2009 Road

Repair

4.7 Reso 10-10 Approve

Lease Agrmt Corralitos

Woman’s Club

4.8 Reso 11-10 Auth City Mgr

or Designee Execute

CalHOME

9.1 Emergency Operation

Plan

9.2 Integrated Regional

Water Mgmt

10.1 Closed Session

6:33 P.M. SESSION

1.0 Roll Call

2.0 Pledge of Allegiance

3.0 Oral Communications

3.1 Report Closed Session

3.2 Cert of Recog Santa Fe

Food Mkt

7.1 Contract Calif Dental

Assoc Foundation

--Reso 12-10 Agrmt--

FAILED

10.0 Adjournment

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

206


1.0 ROLL CALL:

Mayor Alejo, Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich, and Council

Members Bersamin Caput, Martinez (arrived at 4:44 p.m.),

Petersen (arrived at 4:32 p.m.), and Rivas were present.

Staff members present were City Manager Palacios, City

Attorney Smith, City Clerk Vázquez Flores, Assistant City

Manager/Interim Community Development Director

Tavantzis, Deputy City Clerk C. Ibarra, Deputy City Manager

Maldonado, Principal Planner Boyle, Housing and

Redevelopment Director Ackerman, Parks and Community

Services Director Espinoza, Administrative Services Director

Pimentel, Library Director Heitzig, Sr. Administrative Analyst

Mattos, Associate Planner Olin, Water Division Manager

Palmisano, and Interpreters Vazquez-Quintero and

Gonzalez.

4.0 CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION: It was moved by Member Rivas, seconded by

Member Bersamin, and carried by the following vote that

Consent Agenda Items 4.1 through 4.8 be approved:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS: Martinez

4.1 ACCEPTING & FILING MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2010

4.2 APPROVING REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS

It was reported that the City Manager had recommended

favorably on claims for the warrants for various funds, which

were referred to Council as follows:

--January 26, 2010

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

207


Trust Fund 3,336.50

Employee Cash Deductions 630,189.63

Fund

General Fund 1,010,979.4

3

Retirement Fund 2,915.00

Investment Fund 2,642.57

Community Dev Block Grant 10,091.54

Relocation Revolving Fund 2,075.00

Affordable Housing 25.00

Police & Rec Gang Prevention 1,977.39

Grant

Library Fund 45,356.19

Special Grants 4,722.43

PEG-Cable TV Fund 392.00

Parks Development Fund 2,390.76

Gas Tax 191,229.13

Parking Garage Fund 3,126.06

Inpervious Area Impact Fee 6,000.00

Fund

Special District Funds 930.05

Debt Service Special 1,929,416.98

Assessment

Capital Projects Fund 20,434.73

Sewer Service Fund 411,221.02

Water Operating Fund 133,418.02

Airport Enterprise Fund 100,694.62

Waste Disposal Fund 86,680.66

Computer Fund-ISF 3,325.50

Workers Comp/Liability Fund 27,799.02

Health Insurance Fund 203,210.74

Total $4,834,579.97

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

208


4.3 MOTION ACCEPTING NOVEMBER & DECEMBER 2009

INVESTMENT REPORT

4.4 RESOLUTION 7-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE INVESTMENT POLICY FOR

CALENDAR YEAR 2010

4.5 RESOLUTION NO. 8-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE APPROVING PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS AND CALLING FOR BIDS FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREEN VALLEY ROAD

REHABILITATION PHASE 2, PROJECT NO. ST-09-03

(ESTIMATED COST OF $2,750,000: $1,837,000 WILL BE

FUNDED FROM THE FEDERAL AMERICAN RECOVERY

AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) FUNDS, $163,000

FROM THE FEDERAL ARRA TRANSPORTATION

ENHANCEMENT FUNDS, $425,000 FROM STATE GAS

TAX FUNDS, AND $325,000 FROM STATE PROPOSITION

1B FUNDS)

4.6 RESOLUTION NO. 9-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF THE

2009 ROAD REPAIR, PROJECT NO. ST-09-01

4.7 RESOLUTION 10-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE APPROVING A THREE-YEAR LEASE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE

AND THE CORRALITOS WOMAN’S CLUB, A

CORPORATION, FOR THE USE OF THE CORRALITOS

WOMAN’S CLUB BUILDING COMMENCING ON

SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 29,

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

209


2012, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE SAME

4.8 RESOLUTION 11-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE

CITY MANAGER AND/OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE

DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CALHOME AND HOME

GRANT PROGRAMS

9.0 REPORTS & PRESENTATIONS

9.1 EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN – No Action Required

9.2 UPDATE ON CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN INTEGRATED

REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN & AWARD OF

$5 MILLION IN PROPOSITION 50 GRANT FUNDS TO

CITY – No Action Required

THE MEETING RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:18

P.M.

5:30 P.M.

1.0 CLOSED SESSION (City Council Conference Room, 275

Main Street—4 th Floor)

Closed Session Announcement:

(a) Public Comments regarding the Closed

Session agenda will only be accepted by the

City Council at this time.

Mayor Alejo called the Closed Session meeting to

order. He called for public comment; there was no

public comment regarding the Closed Session

Agenda.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

210


A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY

NEGOTIATOR

(Government Code Section 54956.8)

1. Property: 21, 27, and 31 West

Beach Street (APN:

017-111-19)

Negotiating Parties: Marty

Ackerman (City)

In Sook Yum dba Top

USA

Under Negotiation:Price and terms of

payment-Lease

2. Property: 275 Main Street (APN:

017-181-48)

Negotiators: Marty Ackerman (City)

Kevin Cardona for

Printworx

Under Negotiation:Price and terms of

payment- Lease

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING

LITIGATION

(Government Code Section 54956.9(a))

1. Name of case: Watsonville Pilots

Association v. City of

Watsonville (Lawton) –

Santa Cruz County

Superior Court (Case

No. CV161350)

2. Name of case: Watsonville Pilots

Assoc., Friends of

Buena Vista v. City of

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

211


Watsonville – Santa

Cruz County Superior

Court

(Case Nos. CV154571 &

CV154572) – 6 th District

Court of Appeal (Case

No. CV154815)

3. Name of case: Mark Heim and Jynel

Heim, The Estate of

Donald T. Heim etal. v.

City of Watsonville

(Case No. H033097,

H034164)

4. Name of case: Francisco Huezo v.

City of Watsonville;

Officer E. Rodriguez;

Officer M. Chappell;

Officer C. Rangel; and

Officer M. Gonzalez –

USDC- NDC (Case No.

C0904538)

6:33 P.M. SESSSION

1.0 ROLL CALL

2.0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3.0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC & CITY

COUNCIL

Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich reported on the events she

attended in the City in the last two weeks.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

212


Member Bilicich thanked Assistant City Manager Tavantzis,

Public Works & Utilities Director Koch, and Sr. Administrative

Analyst Tantalo for helping resolve issues and providing

resources and information to the residents of District 7.

Member Bersamin thanked the public for attending the

meeting and asked that they continue to attend future

Council meetings.

Members Caput, Martinez, and Petersen welcomed the

public and thanked them for attending the meeting.

Member Rivas offered his prayers to the people of Haiti and

asked the Council and the public to join him in donating to

the American Red Cross to benefit the people of Haiti.

Mr. Wright, American Red Cross Director, asked the public

to donate to Haiti relief.

Mayor Alejo asked for a moment of silence for the people of

Haiti and encouraged the public to continue to donate to

Haiti relief.

Mayor Alejo reported on the various events he attended in

the City in the past two weeks.

3.1 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Smith reported no action out of closed session.

3.2 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION

TO SANTA FE FOOD MARKET (Mayor Alejo)

7.0 OLD BUSINESS

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

213


7.1 CONTRACT WITH CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION

FOUNDATION PROVIDING FUNDING FLUORIDATION OF

CITY’S DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

(a)

Staff Report

The Staff Report was given by Water Division Manager

Palmisano and Public Works and Utilities Director

Koch.

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

Member Martinez questioned whether the Brown Act

was violated because the Council received two

separate letters from the CDAF dated the same date,

one which he stated they received that night and not 72

hours in advance.

City Attorney Smith explained that the 72-hour notice

requirement under the Brown Act was an agenda

posting requirement which required that the agenda

must be posted 72 hours before the meeting. He said

that if the Council received additional documents and

did not have sufficient time to review them, it would not

be a Brown Act violation.

City Clerk Vasquez Flores explained that the e-mail

was received by the City on January 25, 2010, and said

she forwarded the e-mail to all Council Members. She

clarified that the reason an “update” was noted on the

City website was that letters were received by the

public after the agenda packet had been posted and

those letters were then added. She clarified that the

staff report and agenda did not change.

Water Division Manager Palmisano answered Member

Petersen’s questions regarding how grant funds would

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

214


e disbursed and how Water Enterprise Funds are

generally used.

City Attorney Smith answered questions from Member

Petersen regarding the $200,000 funding cap.

Water Division Manager Palmisano answered Member

Caput’s questions regarding the number of water

sources and pumps in the City and the areas included

in the 15,000 households the City serves.

Member Bersamin explained that the issue discussed

was not about whether the City should fluoridate, but

rather if the contract should be approved.

City Attorney Smith answered questions from Member

Bilicich regarding background information on the

Superior Court decision to fluoridate.

City Attorney Smith, in answering Member Rivas, said

that if Council approved Alternative 1 he did not know if

the Dental Association Foundation would approve it.

City Attorney Smith, in answering Member Martinez’s

questions, said he could not estimate what the legal

cost would be if the City was sued because there could

be several possible scenarios.

Public Works & Utilities Director Koch answered

questions from Member Martinez regarding staff time

and legal costs.

City Attorney Smith, in answering Member Caput’s

questions, explained the consequences of rejecting the

contract and said he did not know of any city in the

State that had been fined or sued by the State.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

215


(c)

Public Input

Hugo J. Ferlito DDS, Associate Dental Director for

Salud Para La Gente, expressed his support for

fluoridation and read a letter written by William G.

Dorey, President & CEO of Granite Construction also in

support of fluoridation.

George Wolfe, Public Health Physician and former

Health Officer, also speaking on behalf of Poki Stewart

Namkung, MD, MPH, County Health Officer who could

not attend, spoke in support of fluoridation and stated

his support for Alternative 1.

Sister Julie Hyer, President & CEO of Salud Para La

Gente, spoke in support of fluoridation and requested

that Council approve the resolution and contract.

Michelle Simon, local Pediatrician, spoke in support of

fluoridating the water in the City and asked Council to

approve the contract.

Juan Uranga, Center for Community Advocacy (CCA),

requested that Council approve the contract as stated

by City Attorney Smith. He stated 100 people in the

audience from CCA were in attendance to show their

support.

Kathleen King, CEO for Pajaro Valley Health Trust,

expressed her support for water fluoridation on behalf

of the Health Trust Organization and requested that

Council adopt Alternative 1.

Dan Hernandez, expressed his support for Alternative 2

and requested that the Council study which type of

fluoride to use.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

216


Sam Earnshaw, 602 Tuttle Avenue, spoke against

fluoridating the water in the City.

Nellie Antuna, 1954 Freedom Boulevard, spoke on

behalf of CCA members and submitted a signed

petition in support of fluoridation with signatures

obtained from community members.

Alana Thompson, General Dentist and Dental Director

at DIENTES Community Dental Care, spoke in support

of fluoridating the water in the City and asked that the

Council approve Alternative 1.

Will Hahn, Executive Director of DIENTES Community

Dental Care, spoke in support of fluoridating the water

in the City and asked to approve Alternative 1.

Jack Fallion, Water Treatment Specialist, spoke against

fluoridating the water and reminded the Council that the

voters in the City voted against fluoridation.

Kirk Halstead, 108 Buena Vista Drive, spoke against

fluoridating the water.

Bruce Donald D.D.S & Member of Monterey Bay Dental

Society expressed his support for water fluoridation and

urged the Council to approve the contract.

man, spoke in support of water fluoridation and urged

the Council to approve the contract.

Delfino, CCA Member, asked the Council to approve

the water fluoridation.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

217


Elsa Sanchez, CCA Member, spoke in support of

fluoridating the water.

Margaret “Maiged” McNeely spoke against fluoridating

the water.

Marilyn Garrett, retired Teacher, spoke against

fluoridating the water and recommended the public read

the book titled “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher

Bryson.

Jerry T. Kondo, Watsonville Dentist, expressed his

support for fluoridating the water.

Susan True, First 5 Santa Cruz County, spoke in

support of fluoridating the water and approving

Alternative1.

Bob Kennedy, Santa Cruz County Public Health, spoke

in support of fluoridating the water and approving

Alternative 1.

Katherine Hernden, retired nurse, spoke against

fluoridation.

Matilde Barrera, CCA Member, spoke in support of

fluoridation.

Howard Pollick D.D.S, Clinical Professor at UCSF

Dentist, spoke in support of fluoridating the water.

Theodore Carey, Santa Cruz resident, spoke against

water fluoridation.

Dr. David Kennedy spoke against water fluoridation.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

218


Joe Flores spoke against fluoridating the water.

John Martinelli spoke against fluoridation and explained

how it would impact his business financially.

Nick Bulaich spoke against fluoridating the water and

urged the Council to reject the contract.

Dennis P. Baluyut D.D.S., Dental Director for Salud

Para La Gente, spoke in support of fluoridation and

asked the council to vote on Alternative 1.

John Hammerstrand spoke against fluoridating the

water.

Allison Sandman, General Counsel for California Dental

Association Foundation, answered questions that

raised regarding the contract and urged the Council to

adopt Alternative 1.

Diana and Katie, Watsonville High School students,

spoke against fluoridation.

Nita Gizdich, spoke against fluoridating the water.

Jeff Green, National Director Citizens for Safe Drinking

Water, spoke against fluoridating the water.

David Biles, Santa Cruz County Dentist, spoke against

fluoridating the water.

Ilia Bulaich, spoke against fluoridating the water.

Kim Tanella spoke against fluoridating the water.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

219


Sabino Lopez spoke in support of fluoridating the water

and approving Alternative 1.

John, Watsonville apple grower & land owner, spoke

against fluoridating the water because it was possible

that Martinelli’s would go out of business.

John Roth, Executive Director California Dental

Association Foundation, asked the Council to move

forward with approving the contract and Alternative 1.

Sylvia Prividelli, Watsonville Farmer, asked the Council

to think about the future of the town before they vote.

Mayor Alejo after hearing no more comments

closed the public input period.

Member Bersamin expressed the reasons he was in

support of fluoridation.

Member Caput said he felt he was being rushed and

stated the various reasons he was against fluoridation

which include the voters’ rights.

Mayor Alejo said he studied the fluoride issue and has

followed it for years and took everything into

consideration before making a decision. He then

expressed the reasons he was in support of

fluoridation.

Member Martinez said he was not aware that this item

was going to be on the agenda until he received a call

from a lobbyist. He expressed the various reasons he

was against fluoridation.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

220


Public Works and Utilities Director Koch in answering

Member Petersen’s questions explained the two

primary types of fluoride forms available and explained

the City would use the liquid acid compound.

Member Petersen explained that her first choice was to

form an ad-hoc subcommittee to review the contract

and ensure the modifications met the needs stated by

Council. She added the need for Council input to City

staff during negotiations with the CDAF

Member Rivas said there was a mandate to fluoridate

and work with the Dental Association and with the State

Department of Public Health. He expressed his support

for Alternative 1.

Public Works & Utilities Director Koch, in answering

Member Bilicich’s questions, stated that the contract

requires payments of all capital and operation costs for

two years. He added that the intent in the negotiations

was to have a contract that would provide for all the

funding to come from the outside source and none from

the City. He said that after two years if there was no

outside funding, the City would no longer be under a

mandate to fluoridate. Mr. Koch answered additional

questions regarding the fiscal impact to the residents if

the City had to continue with fluoridation.

Member Bilicich expressed her support to form an adhoc

subcommittee to review all the details before

approving a contract where many of the details have

not been finalized.

(d) RESOLUTION NO. 12-10 (CM): FAILED

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE AUTHORIZING AND

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

221


DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

DESIGN LETTER AGREEMENT AND

FLUORIDATION FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE AND THE

CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION

FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC

BENEFIT CORPORATION, TO FUND THE DESIGN,

CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A WATER

FLUORIDATION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY WATER

SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY

MANAGER TO HIRE DESIGN ENGINEER, APPROVE

DESIGN, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, CALL FOR

BIDS AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLUORIDATION SYSTEM

TO IMPLEMENT A WATER FLUORIDATION

PROGRAM; AND APPROPRIATING ALL GRANT

FUNDS WHEN RECEIVED TO THE WATER

ENTERPRISE FUND

The above resolution was introduced by Mayor Alejo

and seconded by Member Rivas, to accept the

recommendation from Staff (alternative one), and to

direct staff to return to Council to address concerns

raised by Mr. Martinelli. The motion failed by the

following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: Bilicich, Caput, Martinez,

Petersen

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

MOTION: It was moved by Member Petersen and

seconded by Mayor Alejo to direct Mayor Alejo to form

an ad-hoc subcommittee and work with Mr. Martinelli to

address his concerns.

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

222


Member Martinez said he supported the motion as long

as members of the community and businesses were

involved.

Member Bersamin volunteered to be a member of the

ad-hoc subcommittee and said he would be open to

having members of the community participate.

Member Petersen said her preference was to have a

Council subcommittee because she considered the

subcommittee was being formed to give guidance on a

contract and not talk about the pros and cons of

fluoridation.

Member Caput expressed his support for having the

people of Watsonville on the subcommittee and stated

he did not want any lobbyists on the committee.

Member Martinez said that the City was under a

mandate to fluoridate only if the CDAF pay for all the

expenses.

Mayor Alejo requested that it remain a Council

subcommittee.

City Attorney Smith, in answering Member Rivas

questions, stated that he did not know if the State would

fine the City as he did not have communication with the

State for several years on the issue.

Members Bersamin, Caput, and Martinez volunteered

to be on the ad-hoc subcommittee. Mayor Alejo said he

would appoint members to the committee and would

inform the public by posting it on the Website.

The above motion carried by the following vote:

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

223


AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

10.0 ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.

ATTEST:

__________________________________

Luis A. Alejo, Mayor

____________________________________

Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk

Vol 58 Min-C01-26-10.docx

224


MINUTES

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

February 4, 2010

City of Watsonville

6:07 P.M. Civic Plaza

Community Room

275 Main Street,

4 th Floor

CONTENTS

1.0 Roll Call

8.1 2009-2011 Strategic Plan

10.0 Adjournment

1.0 ROLL CALL

Present were Mayor Alejo, Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich, City

Council Members Bersamin, Caput (6:50 P.M.), Martinez,

Petersen, Rivas.

Staff members present were City Manager Palacios, City

Attorney Smith, City Clerk Vázquez Flores, Assistant City

Manager/Interim Community Development Director

Tavantzis, Interim Deputy City Manager Maldonado, Parks &

Community Services Director Espinoza, Public Works &

Utilities Director Koch, Assistant Public Works & Utilities

Director Geyer, Administrative Services Director Pimentel,

Library Director Heitzig, Police Chief Solano, Fire Chief

Bisbee, Deputy Police Chiefs Escalante & Knill, Police

Lieutenants McCartney and Gluhan, Water Division Manager

Palmisano, Solid Waste Division Manager Gordo, Principal

Engineer Rodriguez, Associate Planner Olin, and Sr.

Administrative Analysts Mattos and Tantalo.

3.0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Vol 58 Min-C02-04-10 Special.docx

218


David Tirri, Pajaro Valley Arts Council, said he appreciated

Council’s support of the Arts Council. He invited everyone to

visit the current exhibit.

8.0 NEW BUSINESS

2009-2011 STRATEGIC PLAN

Welcome by City Manager Palacios.

Status of Ranked Projects/Initiatives & Action Plan

Implementation by Assistant City Manager Tavantizis.

Public Input

Theo Wiersdema, Pajaro Valley Chamber of Commerce,

suggested that the City work with the arts community to use

downtown storefronts to showcase their art and revitalize

downtown.

Council Member Martinez suggested property owners could

rent their facades as advertisements to non-downtown

businesses to take advantage of the heavy traffic on Main

Street.

Council Member Rivas recommended that the City approach

the Arts Council to get artists to work in downtown.

Department Heads gave overview of their Department’s

programs.

Council Member Martinez stated that he would not want to

see a reduction in police officers and firefighters hours.

Discussion and Possible Action on Any Mid-Cycle

Amendment to the Strategic Plan

Vol 58 Min-C02-04-10 Special.docx

219


City Manager Palacios asked Council to consider adding

three new projects to the Strategic Plan: participate in the

Central Coast Broadband Consortium, have an Economic

Development Strategy Session, and have a Joint

Council/Pajaro Valley Unified School District Meeting.

MOTION: It was moved by Member Rivas, seconded by

Member Petersen, and carried by the following vote to

approve staff recommendation to add the above three

projects to the Strategic Plan:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Martinez,

Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: Caput

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

10.0 ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M.

ATTEST:

__________________________________

Luis A. Alejo, Mayor

____________________________________

Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk

Vol 58 Min-C02-04-10 Special.docx

220


MINUTES

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

February 9, 2010

City of

Watsonville

4:09 P.M. Council

Chambers

275 Main Street,

4 th Floor

CONTENTS

Joint Council/Redev Agency

Session

1.0 Roll Call

6.1 Mid-Yr Budget Review

--Reso 13-10 (CM)

Amend 2008-2010

Budget

--Reso 1-10 (RA) Budget

Approp

6:51 P.M. SESSION

1.0 Roll Call

2.0 Pledge of Allegiance

3.0 Oral Communications

3.1 Report Closed Session

3.2 Presentation/PVPSA/Sm

oke Free Zone

4.1 Rpt Disbursements

4.2 Reso 14-10 Accept

Completion Sea View

Ranch Well No. 3 (ST-08-

03)

4.3 Reso 15-10 Approve

Agmt/JEA

Associates/Legislative

Services

4.4 Reso 16-10 Authorize

Appl Clean Water Act

319(h)

6.2 Reso 17-10

Abatement/Public

Nuisance 324 Ford St.

6.3 Reso 18-10 Housing

Element Update

6.4 Reso 19-10

Authorize/Join

CaliforniaFirst Program

Reso 20-10 Authorize

Sac County Apply State

Energy Program

8.1 Reso 21-10 Healthy

Eating Active Living

Cities Campaign (HEAL)

8.2 Motion/Joint City

Council/PVUSD Board

of Trustees Mtg

10.1 Closed Session

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

220


JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

1.0 ROLL CALL:

Present were Mayor/Chair Alejo (arrived at 4:38 p.m.),

Mayor Pro Tempore/Vice Chair Bilicich, and Council/Agency

Members Bersamin, Caput, Martinez (arrived at 4:12 p.m.),

Petersen, and Rivas (arrived at 4:23 p.m.)

Staff members present were City Manager/Executive

Director Palacios, City Attorney/Agency Counsel Smith, City

Clerk/Agency Secretary Vázquez Flores, Deputy City

Clerk/Assistant Secretary C. Ibarra, Assistant City

Manager/Deputy Executive Director Tavantzis, Deputy City

Manager Maldonado, Principal Planner Boyle, Housing and

Redevelopment Director Ackerman, Parks and Community

Services Director Espinoza, Administrative Services Director

Pimentel, Library Director Heitzig, Deputy Police Chiefs

Escalante & Knill, Building Official Stone, Sr. Administrative

Analyst Tantalo, Sr. Utilities Engineer Ketley, Solid Waste

Division Manager Gordo, Administrative Analyst Maldonado,

Battalion Fire Chief Farr, Financial Analysts Duran &

Rodriguez, Police Lieutenant Gluhan, Administrative

Services Manager Peters, Water Division Manager

Palmisano, Recreation Superintendent Calubaquib, and

Interpreters Miranda and Vázquez-Quintero.

6.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES, & APPEALS

6.1 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW & RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) Mid-Year Budget Review by Administrative Services

Director

--General Fund

--Redevelopment Agency

--Enterprise Funds

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

221


(b) City Council/Agency Members Questions

Member Martinez requested the General Fund reserves

balance for the past three years.

Member Martinez requested more information

regarding the public safety overtime strain and workers

compensation costs.

Member Bilicich asked for the amount of the actual cost

of an officer.

Administrative Services Director Pimentel answered

questions from Member Caput regarding the overtime

shift change expenses from 4/10 to 3/12 schedule.

Police Chief Solano said that there is an Memorandum

of Understanding with the Police Officers’ Union which

allows the Union or the Administration to revert back to

the 4/10 schedule, which he stated he intended to do.

Administrative Services Director Pimentel answered

Member Martinez’s questions regarding the property

tax revenue projections.

City Manager/Executive Director Palacios answered

questions from Member Martinez regarding the frozen

positions.

Administrative Services Director Pimentel answered

questions from Member Martinez regarding the reserve

fund requirement and risk management fund.

Administrative Services Director Pimentel answered

questions from Member Bilicich regarding the

retirement two tier system.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

222


Administrative Services Director Pimentel answered

questions from Member Bersamin regarding the

increasing cost of state employee retirement system

and the effect on the City budget.

City Manager/Executive Director Palacios answered

questions from Member Petersen about the transferring

of positions and the timeline.

Member Martinez requested he receive a list of the

positions that were being transferred.

(c)

Public Hearing

Mayor Alejo/Vice Chair opened the public hearing, and

hearing no comments closed the public hearing.

(d) RESOLUTION 13-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE AMENDING THE 2008-2010

BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010

TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN BUDGET

APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM (CIP) EXPENDITURE ITEMS

(e)

RESOLUTION NO. 1-10 (RA):

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE

AUTHORIZING BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FROM

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS FOR FISCAL

YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2010 FOR CERTAIN

URGENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

MOTION: It was moved by Member Rivas, seconded

by Member Bersamin to approve staff

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

223


ecommendations and introduced Items (d) and (e).

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bilicich, Bersamin, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

THE JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING

ADJOURNED AT 5:26 P.M.

5:35 P.M.

10.1 CLOSED SESSION (City Council Conference Room, 275

Main Street—4 th Floor)

Closed Session Announcement:

(a) Public Comments regarding the Closed

Session agenda will only be accepted by the

City Council at this time.

Mayor Alejo called the Closed Session meeting to

order. He called for public comment; there was no

public comment regarding the Closed Session

Agenda.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –

ANTICIPATED

LITIGATION

(Government Code Section 54956.9 (b))

1. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to

subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9:

1 Case

B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR

(Government Code Section 54957.6)

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

224


1. Agency negotiator: Mario Maldonado and

David Koch

Employee organization: Police Officers

Association, Public

Safety Mid-Management

Unit

6:51 P.M. SESSION

1.0 ROLL CALL

Present were Mayor Alejo, Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich, and

Council Members Bersamin, Caput, Martinez, Petersen, and

Rivas.

2.0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3.0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC & CITY

COUNCIL

Harold Griffith asked City to find out who would pay for

lawsuit costs if the City was sued over fluoridation.

Marilyn Garrett, retired PVUSD Teacher, spoke against

water fluoridation and went over some of the symptoms of

microwave radiation sickness.

Richard Salazar, Director of Guitars not Guns, gave an

update on the program and reported they had a successful

raffle at the Ritchie Valens Concert.

Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich listed the different events she

attended in the City in the past two weeks.

Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich announced the Fluoride Ad-Hoc

Subcommittee has met and will continue to meet and hoped

to get a resolution soon.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

225


Member Bersamin read from a transcribed excerpt of the

audio recording from the January 26, 2010, Council meeting

to clarify comments he made during the fluoride discussion.

Member Caput acknowledged Aldamas Carniceria y Marketa

located at 329 Rodriguez Street.

Members Caput and Martinez listed the different events they

attended in the City in the last two weeks.

Member Petersen congratulated Mayor Pro Tempore Bilicich

for Soroptimist International, which she is a member, being

named Organization of the Year at the Chamber of

Commerce dinner.

Member Petersen thanked Richard Salazar for all of the

work he does in the community.

Member Petersen went over the different events she

attended in the City in the last two weeks.

Member Rivas invited the public to the “On the Same Page”

event where Author Reyna Grande’s book “Across a

Hundred Mountains” will be featured at the Mello Center on

Thursday, February 18, 2010. He thanked the Ow Family for

sponsoring the event.

Member Rivas went over the different events he attended in

the City in the last two weeks.

Member Rivas gave his condolences to the Pusateri family

for the passing of former Watsonville Police Officer Joseph

Pusateri and requested a moment of silence in his honor.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

226


Chief Solano said some words for former Watsonville Police

Officer Pusateri who passed away recently and mentioned

some of his accomplishments.

Mayor Alejo invited the public to attend the “On the Same

Page” event where Author Reyna Grande will be featured.

He thanked the Ow Family and all of the sponsors for

organizing the event.

Mayor Alejo listed the different events he attended in the City

in the past two weeks.

3.1 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

3.2 PRESENTATION BY PAJARO VALLEY PREVENTION &

STUDENT ASSISTANCE (PVPSA) REGARDING

ESTABLISHMENT OF SMOKE FREE ZONE IN

DOWNTOWN PARKING LOTS

Jairo A. Hernandez, Prevention Program Specialist, gave a

presentation regarding the PVPSA tobacco prevention

program and gave recommendations to Council as to which

City owned parking lots should be designated as smoke free.

Juan Melgoza and Juan Zamora, High School Students,

played the public service announcement video they created

regarding the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke.

Member Martinez asked that the item be agendized for a

future Council meeting.

4.0 CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION: It was moved by Member Rivas, seconded by

Member Petersen, and carried by the following vote that

Consent Agenda Items 4.1 through 4.4 be approved:

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

227


AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS: None

City Manager Palacios answered Member Caput’s question

regarding Item 4.3 and “chargeable expenses.”

4.1 APPROVING REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS

It was reported that the City Manager had recommended

favorably on claims for the warrants for various funds, which

were referred to Council as follows:

--February 9, 2010

Trust Fund 806.50

Employee Cash Deductions 1,132,665.3

Fund

1

General Fund 182,947.82

Community Dev Block Grant 14,991.39

Relocation Revolving Fund 6,284.00

Police & Rec Gang Prevention 4,793.17

Grant

Library Fund 6,452.87

Special Grants 2,822.21

PEG-Cable TV Fund 1,709.48

Parks Development Fund 63,758.35

Gas Tax 10,675.42

Parking Garage Fund 3,572.71

Errington South Benefit Area 23,688.60

Special District Funds 29.45

Capital Projects Fund 299.85

Sewer Service Fund 204,453.74

Water Operating Fund 105,449.51

Airport Enterprise Fund 154,928.13

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

228


Waste Disposal Fund 27,477.85

Workers Comp/Liability Fund 48,698.49

Health Insurance Fund 130,392.53

Narcotics Forfeiture Pending 4,359.38

Narcotics Forfeiture Award 535.50

Total $2,131,792.26

4.2 RESOLUTION 14-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF THE

SEA VIEW RANCH WELL NO. 3 PUMP STATION,

PROJECT NO. WA-08-03

4.3 RESOLUTION NO. 15-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE APPROVING PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS AND CALLING FOR BIDS FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREEN VALLEY ROAD

REHABILITATION PHASE 2, PROJECT NO. ST-09-03

(ESTIMATED COST OF $2,750,000: $1,837,000 WILL BE

FUNDED FROM THE FEDERAL AMERICAN RECOVERY

AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) FUNDS, $163,000

FROM THE FEDERAL ARRA TRANSPORTATION

ENHANCEMENT FUNDS, $425,000 FROM STATE GAS

TAX FUNDS, AND $325,000 FROM STATE PROPOSITION

1B FUNDS)

4.4 RESOLUTION NO. 16-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF THE

2009 ROAD REPAIR, PROJECT NO. ST-09-01

6.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES, & APPEALS

(Continued)

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

229


6.2 CONFIRMING REPORT & ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR

ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 324 FORD

STREET (APN: 018-091-11)

(a)

Staff Report

The staff report was given by Interim Community

Development Director Tavantzis. She introduced new

employee, Building Official Mike Stone to the Council.

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion (none)

(c)

Public Hearing

Mayor Alejo opened the public hearing, and hearing no

comments closed the public hearing.

(d) RESOLUTION NO. 17-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE CONFIRMING REPORT

AND ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR THE

ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 324

FORD STREET (APN: 018-091-11), WATSONVILLE,

CALIFORNIA

The above resolution was introduced by Member Rivas,

seconded by Member Petersen, and carried by the

following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

6.3 WATSONVILLE 2008-2013 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

(a) Staff Report

The staff report was given by Interim Community

Development Director Tavantzis, Principal Planner

Boyle, and Project Manager Associate Planner Olin.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

230


(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

Associate Planner Olin in answering Member Caput’s

question explained that the housing outlined in the

document is not a commitment to build housing, but a

commitment to identify those potential sites available

for development.

City Manager Palacios in answering Member Caput’s

question explained that the zoning is not being

changed.

Interim Community Development Director Tavantzis

answered Member Caput’s questions regarding the

new “extremely low” category.

Interim Community Development Director Tavantzis

answered various questions from Member Bilicich and

explained the map in more detail.

City Manager Palacios answered questions from

Member Martinez regarding if the Element would

impact the Watsonville Airport Land Use Compatibility

Plan.

Associate Planner Olin and Principal Planner Boyle

answered Member Martinez’s questions regarding how

the properties were evaluated and the timeline deadline

for State certification.

Interim Community Development Director Tavantzis

answered Member Petersen’s questions regarding the

reason the City is planning for housing and complying

with State requirements.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

231


Interim Community Development Director Tavantzis at

the request of Member Bersamin explained CDBG

funding. He requested that in the future to make maps

easier to follow for the general public.

Member Rivas expressed his support for the item.

Mayor Alejo explained the reasons certified housing

elements are required and stated the reasons he

supported this item.

Associate Planner Olin answered Member Martinez’s

question regarding the last time the infill study was

conducted.

Member Caput was concerned if he could vote since

his residence was near to one of the parcels included in

the Element Plan. City Attorney Smith explained that he

could vote on the item because it affects the entire City

uniformly.

(c)

Public Hearing

Mayor Alejo opened the public Hearing.

Pat Fink asked for clarification regarding high density

and water service in the event of a water shortage.

Sean Thorn, Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition,

expressed his support for the Housing Element.

Mayor Alejo closed the public hearing after hearing no

more comments.

(d) RESOLUTION NO. 18-10 (CM):

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE ADOPTING THE STATE OF

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

232


CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CERTIFIED CITY OF

WATSONVILLE 2008-2013 HOUSING ELEMENT

UPDATE

The above resolution was introduced by Member

Petersen and seconded by Member Rivas.

Member Petersen expressed her support for the

Housing Element and thanked staff for their work in

preparing the Housing Element.

Member Caput said he agreed with 90% of the report;

however, he said he was concerned with 10% of its

contents.

Member Martinez said he supported infill and would like

to see a program with the Redevelopment Agency

where the concentration of infill was in downtown. He

added that he was not sure he could support the plan

because he felt rushed and did not have all of the

information in order to approve it.

Member Rivas expressed his support for the item and

commended City staff for the work they did.

Mayor Alejo encouraged Council to call staff before the

Council meeting if they have questions.

The above resolution introduction carried by the

following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Petersen,

Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: Caput, Martinez

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

233


6.4 PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIAFIRST RENEWABLE

ENERGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

(a)

Staff Report

The Staff Report was given by Senior Utilities Engineer

Ketley and Brennen Jensen with Ecology Action.

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

Senior Utilities Engineer Ketley answered Member

Martinez’s question regarding the design of solar

panels and blinding effects.

Member Petersen asked questions regarding the City’s

carbon footprint and Senior Utilities Engineer Ketley

said he would provide that information to her.

Senior Utilities Engineer Ketley in answering Member

Bilicich’s question said that anyone that lives within

Santa Cruz County and Monterey County would be

eligible for the program.

Senior Utilities Engineer Ketley and Brennen Jensen

answered questions from Member Rivas regarding the

cost of installing solar panels in a home and whether a

local company would be doing the work.

Mayor Alejo expressed his support for the item.

(c)

Public Hearing (none)

(d) RESOLUTION NO. 19-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE AUTHORIZING THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE TO JOIN THE

CALIFORNIAFIRST PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

234


DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT

APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS,

CONDUCT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT

PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY CONTRACTUAL

ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE

CITY; AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS

(e)

RESOLUTION NO. 20-10 (CM):

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE AUTHORIZING

SACRAMENTO COUNTY TO APPLY FOR

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (STATE

ENERGY PROGRAM) GRANT FUNDS ON BEHALF

OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE

The above resolutions were introduced by Mayor Alejo,

seconded by Member Rivas, and carried by the

following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

8.0 NEW BUSINESS

8.1 HEALTHY EATING ACTIVE LIVING (HEAL) CITIES

CAMPAIGN OF LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

(a)

Staff Report

The staff report was given by Assistant to the City

Manager Manning.

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

Member Rivas expressed his support for this item and

requested it be included that the City of Watsonville has

a task force in place.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

235


Members Bersamin, Caput, Martinez and Mayor Alejo

expressed their support for this item.

(c)

Public Hearing (none)

(d) RESOLUTION NO. 21-10 (CM):

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES HEALTHY EATING ACTIVE

LIVING (―HEAL‖) CITIES CAMPAIGN

The above resolution was introduced by Member Rivas,

seconded by Member Bersamin, and carried by the

following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

8.2 PROPOSED JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PAJARO VALLEY

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

(a) Mayor’s Report

The staff report was given by Mayor Alejo. He

recommended a joint meeting between the City Council

and the Pajaro Valley Unified School District to discuss

issues of mutual concern, ie: Violence Prevention,

Disaster Preparedness, and Graduation Attainment.

(b) City Council Questions & Discussion

Mayor Alejo answered questions from Member Caput

regarding whether a minimum number of members is

required from each board.

Member Martinez expressed his support to have a joint

meeting.

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

236


City Attorney Smith answered questions from Member

Caput regarding the jurisdictional rules of meetings.

(c)

Public Input

Rhea Dehart, expressed her support for having the joint

meeting.

(d) MOTION:

The motion was introduced by Member Rivas,

seconded by Mayor Alejo, and carried by the following

vote to a joint meeting between the City Council and the

Pajaro Valley Unified School District to discuss issues

of mutual concern, ie: Violence Prevention, Disaster

Preparedness, and Graduation Attainment:

AYES: MEMBERS: Bersamin, Bilicich, Caput,

Martinez, Petersen, Rivas, Alejo

NOES: MEMBERS: None

ABSENT: MEMBERS None

10.0 ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 9:48 P.M.

ATTEST:

__________________________________

Luis A. Alejo, Mayor

____________________________________

Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk

Vol 58 Min-C02-09-10.docx

237


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO. _______ (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE REJECTING CLAIM OF

ROBERT GOULD FOR DAMAGES

(Date of Occurrence: July 29, 2009)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

That the claim of Robert Gould for damages, which was

filed with the City Clerk on January 27, 2010, be and the same

is hereby rejected.

*******************************

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular

meeting of the Council of the City of Watsonville, held on the

day of

, 2010, by Council Member

________________, who moved its adoption, which motion

being duly seconded by Council Member ,

was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the

following vote:

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\RC 10-03 Gould.docx

ri 2/18/2010 8:10:56 AM

1

AJS ______ CJP ______


AYES:

NOES:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

______________________________

Luis Alejo, Mayor

_____________________________

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________

City Attorney

Reso No. (CM) 2

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\RC 10-03 Gould.docx

ri 2/18/2010 8:10:56 AM


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO. _______ (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE REJECTING CLAIM OF

CHRISTINA MORALES FOR DAMAGES

(Date of Occurrence: January 15, 2010)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

That the claim of Christina Morales for damages, which

was filed with the City Clerk on February 8, 2010, be and the

same is hereby rejected.

*******************************

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular

meeting of the Council of the City of Watsonville, held on the

day of

, 2010, by Council Member

________________, who moved its adoption, which motion

being duly seconded by Council Member ,

was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the

following vote:

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\RC 10-05 Morales.docx

ri 2/18/2010 8:05:05 AM

1

AJS ______ CJP ______


AYES:

NOES:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

______________________________

Luis Alejo, Mayor

_____________________________

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________

City Attorney

Reso No. (CM) 2

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\RC 10-05 Morales.docx

ri 2/18/2010 8:05:05 AM


City Council _______

City of Watsonville

Public Works and Utilities

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: February 10, 2010

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Carlos J. Palacios, City Manager

David Koch, Director of Public Works/Utilities

Nancy Lockwood, Environmental Projects

Manager

Resolution Approving Application to

CalRecycle for Tire Recycling Program Grant

Funds

AGENDA ITEM: February 23, 2010

City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution

approving the City’s application to CalRecycle for $12,000 for

costs associated with used tire recycling and disposal.

DISCUSSION:

Funding from CalRecycle (formerly California Integrated Waste

Management Board) would enable the City to continue to offer

free and reduced-cost tire recycling at the Waste and Recycling

Drop-off at the Municipal Service Center on Harvest Drive. The

Page 1 of 2

Writer’s name 2/10/2010 2:42:40 PM

M:\Public Works & Utilities\Staff Reports\2010\Staff Reportnancy.doc


grant funds would reimburse the City for staff time needed to

accept and store tires. It would also cover the cost of tire

recycling and disposal paid to a licensed hauler as well as the

cost of advertising the program. By making tire recycling

convenient and free of charge or low cost, fewer tires will be

discarded illegally or improperly stored at homes. The program

helps keep our alleyways, roadsides and wetlands clean and

attractive.

The Waste and Recycling Drop-off accepts passenger tires

without rims (up to 9 per year per household) from City residents

at no charge. There are charges for tires over this limit, for larger

tires and for tires with rims.

Used tires are removed from the Municipal Service Center by a

licensed hauler, West Coast Rubber, located in Hollister. The tires

are ground and made into products including playground and

horse arena mats and parking lot car stops. Tires in a state of

advanced decomposition are landfilled.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This grant application would support a program that is consistent

with the Strategic Plan goal of maintaining infrastructure.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

If awarded, the grant would provide $12,000 to cover existing

costs in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose to not proceed with this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

cc: City Attorney

Page 2 of 2

Writer’s name 2/10/2010 2:42:40 PM

M:\Public Works & Utilities\Staff Reports\2010\Staff Reportnancy.doc


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO.

(CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE AUTHORIZING AND

DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE TO SUBMIT A GRANT

APPLICATION FOR $12,000 TO CALRECYCLE

(FORMERLY CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE

MANAGEMENT BOARD) FOR THE TIRE RECYCLING

PROGRAM GRANT; AND IF AWARDED, TO

EXECUTE A STANDARD AGREEMENT AND ANY

AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND ANY NECESSARY

DOCUMENTS

WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 40000 et seq.

authorizes the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

(CalRecycle), previously known as the California Integrated Waste

Management Board, to administer various grant programs in

furtherance of the State of California’s efforts to reduce, recycle

and reuse solid waste generated in the State thereby preserving

landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the

environment; and

WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is

required to establish procedures governing the application,

awarding, and management of the grants; and

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\CALRecycle Grant Application.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:26:56 AM

AJS ______ CJP ______ PWU______

1


WHEREAS, grant application procedures require an

applicant’s governing board to authorize by resolution its approval

for submittal of the grant application identified below, and the

designation by job title of the individual authorized to execute all

grant documents on behalf of the local agency; and

WHEREAS, if awarded, the City Manager, on behalf of the

City of Watsonville will enter into a Grant Agreement with

CalRecycle for implementation of said Grant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby authorizes the submittal of

a $12,000 grant application to (CalRecycle) for all grants for which

the City of Watsonville is eligible.

2. That the authorization is effective through the duration of

said Grant.

3. That the City Manager, is hereby authorized and

empowered to execute in the name of the City of Watsonville all

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\CALRecycle Grant Application.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:26:56 AM

2


grant documents, including but not limited to, applications,

agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to

secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project.

4. That the City Manager of the City of Watsonville is

authorized and directed, if said grant is awarded, to appropriate

the $12,000 to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.

*******************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\CALRecycle Grant Application.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:26:56 AM

3


City Council _______

City of Watsonville

Community Development Department

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: February 9, 2010

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Carlos J. Palacios, City Manager

Marcela Tavantzis, Interim Community

Development Director,

Suzi Aratin, Senior Planner

Consideration of a General Plan Amendment

(PP2009-286) from (R-LD) Low Density

Residential to (CG) General Commercial,

Rezoning from (R-1) Single Family Residential

to (CN) Neighborhood Commercial, Major

Variance to the parking distance requirement,

and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a

property located at 813 Freedom Boulevard

(APN: 016-143-09).

AGENDA ITEM: February 23, 2010

City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council adopt resolutions regarding the following proposals

for the property at 813 Freedom Boulevard:

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration;

2. General Plan Amendment from R-LD (Residential, Low Density)

to CG (General Commercial); and

Page 1 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\KB\ds\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


3. Major Variance to the parking distance requirement

That the City Council introduce an Ordinance to rezone the property at

813 Freedom Boulevard from R-1(Single Family Residential) to CN

(Neighborhood Commercial).

OVERVIEW:

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Santa Cruz County is

currently located at the Towers on Green Valley Road. They have

submitted an application for a General Plan amendment from R-LD

(Residential, Low Density) to CG (General Commercial), and rezoning

of the property at 813 Freedom Boulevard from (R-1) Single Family

Residential to (CN) Neighborhood Commercial, to allow them to

establish their offices in the existing single family residence. CASA

purchased the property in May, 2009 with the goal of converting the

two-story, single family residence into a comfortable and safe homelike

environment for CASA advocates and children, with staff offices.

The property can accommodate 4 parking spaces on-site. CASA has

found 3 off-site parking spaces for their staff at Brennan Square at 44

Brennan Street and 5 spaces at Saint Patrick’s Church at 721 Main

Street for a total of 12 parking spaces.

In order to support the General Plan amendment and Rezoning

application, CASA has submitted a Major Variance application to

recognize the two off-site locations that are further than 150-feet from

the project site. Due to the potential impact on parking in the vicinity of

the project, an Initial Study was prepared and a Mitigated Negative

Declaration circulated.

PROCESS:

Section 14-12.700 of the Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC) allows

amendments to the General Plan by City Council resolution, after

recommendation by the Planning Commission. WMC Section 14-

Page 2 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


12.800 allows amendments to the Zoning Code and Map with approval

of an ordinance by the City Council, upon recommendation by the

Planning Commission. WMC Chapter 14-12.600 allows for Major

Variances to Zoning regulations with approval by the Planning

Commission. Final action on the Negative Declaration is conducted

by the final action body (City Council) in compliance with City

regulations.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:

The application was heard by the Planning Commission at their regular

meeting on February 2, 2010. Several people spoke in favor of the

project, and one neighbor expressed concern regarding parking in the

neighborhood.

The Planning Commission provided unanimous recommendation for

the project due to CASA’s mission and success in helping children in

the foster care system and its compatibility with the existing

neighborhood. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a

letter of support for the application to be included as an attachment to

this report, urging that the City Council approve the project.

DISCUSSION:

Existing Site The property at 813 Freedom Boulevard contains an

existing residential structure and detached garage. The garage is

accessed via an alley to the rear of the property. The two-story house

contains 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and a total of 3,357 square feet.

The site is on the edge of an established residential neighborhood and

commercial property along Freedom Boulevard. The site is directly

adjacent to a church that has a current General Plan designation of

Public/Quasi Public in the 2005 General Plan, but is recognized as a

commercially planned site in the 2030 General Plan.

Proposed Site Modifications As part of CASA converting the existing

residence to offices, a new front porch railing and awnings will be

installed to the front of the house. A front window will be converted to

Page 3 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


a door to match the style and size of the French doors on the adjacent

doors.

The existing two-car garage at the rear of the property will be removed

and replaced with four parking spaces including one accessible

parking space.

Landscaping The front, side and rear yard of the property will be

completely re-landscaped to include new trees, shrubs, perennials and

lawn area. Trees will include Washington Thorn, Deodar Cedar,

Grecian Laurel, and Southern Magnolia. Shrubs will include Peruvian

lilies, daylilies and lavender. The landscaping will enhance the

character of the house, and support its integrity with the existing

neighborhood.

Alley Access The parking area at the rear of the property is accessed

via an alley that runs between Brennan and High Streets which runs

through commercial property. In order that other residential properties

along the alley are not impacted, the permit is being conditioned that

CASA direct visitors to access the alley from Brennan Street, which will

limit the impact on the neighborhood.

POLICY DISCUSSION:

A. General Plan Amendment

In order to modify the General Plan, the City Council must make

specific findings, as outlined in WMC Chapter 14-12.708:

1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies

embodied in the General Plan.

The 2005 General Plan contains specific policies relating to all

aspects of City life, including land use, public safety, and

community character. The scope of the project is to provide

Page 4 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


adequate space for CASA to carry out their mission of providing a

voice for abused and neglected children in the juvenile court

process.

Goal 7.1 of the General Plan calls for the City to be committed to

providing a safe and protective environment for children. CASA

provides a program to help children navigate the foster care system

through the help of volunteer advocates that spend time with the

children. The creation of a home-like environment for CASA and

the children that they serve follows the intent of Goal 7.1 of the

General Plan.

Goal 4.B.1 of the General Plan calls for the evaluation of existing

land use patterns prior to approval of new development that may

prove disruptive to local circulation. The City has carefully

evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendment and its potential

effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The property is located at

the edge of a commercial zone. The adjacent church currently has

a General Plan designation of Public/Quasi Public, however in the

2030 General Plan the designation was changed to General

Commercial. Due to the unique nature of CASA, the use will be

compatible with the neighborhood and provide a buffer between

existing commercial use and the residential neighborhood.

General Plan Policy 4-H calls for the assistance to programs

designed to address special needs populations including children.

CASA is an organization dedicated to helping children in the foster

care and court systems. Their goal is to provide the children in their

program with a safe, loving home to heal from a life of abuse and

neglect so they can grow into healthy, contributing members of

society.

Page 5 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


2. That the proposed amendment is compatible, to the extent

possible, with the actual and general planned use of the

adjacent properties.

The property is located at the edge of an existing neighborhood,

adjacent to a church and across the street from Callaghan Park.

The street melds into a commercial district as Freedom Boulevard

extends toward Main Street. The adjacent church property has a

General Plan designation of Public/Quasi Public in the 2005

General Plan, and a General Commercial designation in the 2030

General Plan. To the east of the property, residential lots are

designated Residential-Low Density.

On the adjacent portion of the neighborhood, to the northeast of the

project site, properties have General Plan designations of General

Commercial to accommodate the commercial nature of the majority

of the Freedom Boulevard corridor. Further to the southwest on

Freedom Boulevard, properties are also designated General

Commercial. The General Plan amendment of the property at 813

Freedom Boulevard will be compatible with the designation of

adjacent properties, and will not disrupt the existing neighborhood.

Given the location of the property, CASA’s use will serve as a buffer

between the commercial uses on one side and the residential areas

on the other. This will minimize the potential for conflicting adjacent

land uses and enhance the desirable characteristics of the

residential areas.

Because of the unique residential nature of the proposed use and

the location of the property at the edge of a commercial zone, the

General Plan amendment is acceptable. Because of the distinctly

residential character of the adjacent homes on Freedom Boulevard,

there is no potential to extend the commercial designation.

Page 6 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


B. Zoning Code and Map Amendment

When a modification to the Zoning Code and amendment to the Zoning

Map are proposed, the City Council shall make the same findings as

those for a General Plan amendment, discussed above. The

modification of the district regulations from R-1, Single Family

Residential to CN, Neighborhood Commercial, will allow for the

establishment of neighborhood serving uses, specifically, the offices

for CASA. No business that would conflict with the existing residential

neighborhood would be allowed to locate at 813 Freedom Boulevard.

A separate Major Variance application will be required for any change

of use from the proposed use.

C. Neighborhood Meetings

CASA has been proactive with the neighborhood in expressing its

desire to work with the neighborhood to reduce potential impacts.

CASA conducted 5 meetings in the neighborhood prior to applying for

permits from the City.

City staff held two public meetings at Moreland Notre Dame School,

the first on November 9, 2009, and the second on January 13, 2010.

At the November 9 th meeting, Staff and CASA outlined the project and

the permit process, and addressed concerns from the neighborhood.

The main concern residents raised regarded on-street parking in the

neighborhood. Neighbors did not want increased traffic or on-street

parking on Brennan Street, High Street, or Gonzales Avenue.

In response to concerns raised at the November 9 meeting, CASA

found 3 additional parking spaces at the Brennan Square property at

44 Brennan Street, exceeding the requirement for off-street parking.

They then submitted an application for a Major Variance to the parking

Page 7 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


distance requirement to allow the 8 off-street parking spaces to be

located further than 150 feet from the property.

A second meeting was held on January 13 th to talk with neighbors

about the parking solution and hear any further concerns or comments

regarding the project. Only a few neighbors attended, and no

additional concerns were raised. CASA expressed their intention to

hold an open-house for the neighborhood on an annual basis, and

wish to keep an open line of communication with the neighbors in order

to reduce any potential conflicts that their office may have with the

neighborhood.

D. Major Variance

The parking requirement for a 4-bedroom single family residence is 3

parking spaces, one of them being covered. The minimum parking

requirement for a charitable organization (DLU 79) is one parking

space for every 300 square feet. With a 3,357 square foot building, 11

parking spaces would be required. Chapter 9-3.108 of the Watsonville

Municipal Code (WMC) allows parking to be calculated at 85 percent of

the floor area for commercial uses. This reduces the parking

requirement to 10 spaces.

The property can only accommodate 4 on-site parking spaces at the

rear, and have secured a total of 8 off-site parking spaces at Saint

Patrick’s Church at 721 Main Street and Brennan Square at 44

Brennan Street, which exceeds the parking requirement.

WMC Chapter 9-3.106 requires that off-site parking spaces be located

within 150 of the project site. Saint Patrick’s Church and Brennan

Square are located more than 150 feet from the property, therefore, a

Major Variance is required for the distance requirement.

Page 8 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


Further, CASA has obtained permission to use Mar Monte Clinic’s

parking lot and the parking lot at Notre Dame School for after-hours

events such as trainings and board meetings, so that these events will

not impact on-street parking in the neighborhood (see attachments 6

and 7).

WMC Chapter 14-12.600 allows for Major Variances to zoning

regulations with approval by the Planning Commission. Certain

findings must be made to support a Major Variance, as outlined below.

1. By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape

of the property in question, or by reason of exceptions

topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional

situation or condition of the property in question, the strict

application of the provisions of that title would result in

peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or in

exceptional and undue hardships upon, the applicant.

The neighborhood was developed with the provision of parking at

the rear of each property accessed by an alley. Most of the

properties in this development, including the adjacent church, do

not have vehicular access to Freedom Boulevard.

In order to maintain the residential character of the house, as well

as to prevent traffic congestion on Freedom Boulevard, the

applicants are requesting approval of a Major Variance to allow offsite

parking that is further than 150 feet from the property, rather

than modify the front of the property by converting the front yard

into diagonal parking.

There are no available off-site parking spaces within 150-feet of the

property, however the applicants have found off-site parking with 5

spaces at Saint Patrick’s church and 3 spaces at Brennan Square.

Page 9 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


These off-site parking spaces are within walking distance to the

property, but strict application of the 150-foot distance requirement

is not possible. CASA is a unique organization that is consistent

with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and

uses. This is a unique circumstance that allows consideration of

off-site parking that exceeds the distance requirement.

This project is being conditioned to require that the parking spaces

on the property be made available for CASA advocates who will

visit the site, which will prevent impacts to on-street parking in the

neighborhood. Additionally, any future business that may occupy

this facility would be required to obtain a Major Variance with a

public hearing.

2. The circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to

other properties in the same land use district.

The property is located at the edge of a commercial General Plan

area. The adjacent church property has a dedicated parking lot for

patrons, and the adjacent residential properties have sufficient

parking on-site.

In order to provide the required number of off-street parking spaces

for the proposed office, to prevent on-street parking impacts in the

vicinity, the applicants have secured parking further than 150-feet

from the property. Given the location of the property at the edge of

a commercial zone, the circumstances related to this Variance to

the parking distance requirement would not apply to other

properties in this district. Any future commercial use of the property

would be subject to a new Major Variance application.

3. The granting of the Variance will not result in material damage

or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, substantial

Page 10 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


impairment of natural resources or be detrimental to the public

health, safety and general welfare.

The allowance of off-site parking to be more than 150 feet from the

property will allow CASA staff to park off-site, leaving on-site

parking spaces available for scheduled advocate visits. Without the

allowance of the Major Variance, on-street parking may be

impacted. The off-site parking spaces at Saint Patrick’s Church and

Brennan Square will ensure that parking in the neighborhood is not

impacted by the office.

4. The Variance is not requested exclusively on the basis of

economic hardship to the applicant, nor was the situation

requiring a Variance created by an act of the applicant, without

obtaining permits.

The applicants have worked diligently to secure off-site parking for

the office. There is no available off-site parking closer than 150-feet

to the site. The applicants have secured 5 parking spaces at Saint

Patrick’s Church and 3 parking spaces at the Brennan Square

parking lot, which will provide for a total of 8 off-site spaces in

addition to 4 on-site spaces.

The necessity for requesting this Major Variance is due to the

location of the property in an established, densely urban area of the

City that does not have surplus parking available. This Variance

was not requested based on economic hardship by the applicants.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Mitigated Negative Declaration Due to concerns regarding parking for

the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on

December 15, 2009 for a 30-day public comment period, in compliance

Page 11 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


with CEQA provisions. No comments were received on the Mitigated

Negative Declaration.

The Initial Study found that the project will cause a less than significant

impact on the environment with the provision of off-street parking for

employees. The provision of off-street parking spaces and conditions

will reduce parking impacts in the vicinity to a less than significant

level.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt

resolutions approving the General Plan Amendment, Major Variance to

the parking distance requirement, Mitigated Negative Declaration and

an Ordinance for the rezoning of the site to CN(Neighborhood

Commercial) for the property located at 813 Freedom Boulevard.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

The adoption of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major

Variance and Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow CASA to use the

property at 813 Freedom Boulevard will further the Strategic Plan goal

of creating a safe and healthy community.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact to the City in approving or denying the

application.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. The City Council could deny the General Plan Amendment,

Rezoning, Major Variance and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

2. The City Council could approve the General Plan Amendment,

Rezoning, Major Variance and Mitigated Negative Declaration

with modified conditions of approval.

Page 12 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


ATTACHMENTS:

1. Site and Vicinity Map

2. CASA Proposal (provided by applicant)

3. Project Plans

4. Letter from Saint Patrick’s Church

5. Letter from Charles Allen

6. Letter from Moreland Notre Dame School

7. Letter from Mar Monte Medical Clinic

8. Letter from David and Jay Keenan

9. Letter of support from the Planning Commission

10.Draft minutes from February 2, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing

cc: City Attorney

Page 13 of 13

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Staffreport.doc\RA\2/9/2010 4:25 PM


11

102

15

11

6

2

8

41

45

49

53

220 224

57

21

22

1

108-118

26

24

9

3

21-31

1 3

44

15

WESTERN DR

34

30

26

16

40

32

28

23

19

22

2

Site and Vicinity Map

27

23

19

15

WEST HIGH ST

A

331

15

9

39

35

325

24

20

16

12

EASTERN DR

11

24

18

GONZALES ST

751

32

24

20

326

322

14

771

757

10

320

781

919

905

7

318

801

855

845

835

A 819

813

762X

833

827

825

217

Legend

213

FREEDOM BL

BRENNAN ST

209

207

906

904

15

14

10

854

850

212

846

338

18

322

108

22

318

314

225

310

114

107

327

118

100

104

321

317

315

311

306

4 5 6 8

9

3

2

1

101

115

111

105

208

Parcel

300' Buffer Zone

Project Site Watsonville City Limit

119

111

SUDDEN ST

123

119

115

113

226

122

330

112

220

218

210

215

211

207

129

126

328

JEFFERSON ST

124

120

116

326

320

310

309

121

123

208

201

PALM AV

205

145

141

137

135

131

316 316A

303

CALIFORNIA ST

301

C B A

202

A

308

128

215

209

92

203

14

PROJECT: PP2009-286

APPLICANT: CASA of Santa Cruz County

APN#s: 016-143-09

LOCATION OF PROJECT: 813 Freedom Blvd

Prepared by Watsonville GIS Center 9/24/2009 (CODD0955).

This Document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Watsonville assumes no responsibility for any errors.

©

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 1


Attachmenmt 2

Page 1 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 2 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 3 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 4 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 5 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 6 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 7 of 8


Attachmenmt 2

Page 8 of 8


Attachment 3

Page 1 of 4


Attachment 3

Page 2 of 4


Attachment 3

Page 3 of 4


Attachment 3

Page 4 of 4


Attachment 4

Page 1 of 1


Attachment 5

Page 1 of 1


Attachment 6

Page 1 of 1


Attachment 7

Page 1 of 1


Attachment 8

Page 1 of 1


EXCERPT OF “DRAFT” MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 2010

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

6.2 A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

ON AN APPLICATION (PP2009-286) FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM

(R-LD) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO (CG) GENERAL COMMERCIAL;

REZONING FROM (R-1) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO (CN) NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMERCIAL; MAJOR VARIANCE TO THE PARKING DISTANCE REQUIREMENT,

AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AT 813 FREEDOM BOULEVARD

(APN: 015-451-11), FILED BY CASA OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY,

APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER.

a) Staff Presentation

The staff report was given by Senior Planner Suzi Aratin. She explained how the

project’s proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies

embodied in the General Plan and how the proposed Amendment is compatible

to the extent possible with the actual and planned use of the adjacent properties.

She outlined the Findings that supported the Variance, noting any future

business would have to obtain a new Variance and go through the same

process. She stated the Initial Study found that the project will cause a less than

significant impact on the environment with the provision of off-street parking for

employees, trainings and events. Due to parking concerns, a Mitigated Negative

Declaration was circulated on December 15, 2008 for a 30-day public comment

period and no comments were received. CASA has been very proactive with the

neighborhood and conducted five neighborhood meetings. The main concerns

expressed by the residents were the on-street parking and increased traffic in the

neighborhood. In response to the residents’ concerns, CASA regrouped and

found additional parking. CASA plans to hold an annual open house and keep

an open line of communication with the neighbors to reduce potential conflicts.

b) Applicant Presentation

Nancy Sherrod, Executive Director of CASA, thanked the Community

Development staff for being very helpful and thanked Mariaelena Tantalo of the

Parks and Community Services Department for convening the neighborhood

public meetings. Ms. Sherrod introduced Leola Lapides, Board President of

CASA and Teall Messer, project architect. She explained how CASA originated

and spoke about their services. She stated 50% of the children they serve are

from the Pájaro Valley.

Leola Lapides, Board President of CASA, stated her agency has been looking for

two years for a location in Watsonville and are thrilled to be here. There are

many children on the waiting list and having a permanent home in Watsonville

will allow them to serve more children. CASA is supported by a very large

volunteer group comprised of professionals and community members.

Teall Messer, project architect stated he was available to answer any questions

regarding the project’s design plans. He spoke about the interior and exterior

modifications including the landscaping. He indicated there may be an exception

in the building code regarding the handicap accessible parking space.

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Excerpt Feb 2 PC Minutes.doc

1

Attachment 10

Page 1 of 3


c) Public Hearing

Chairperson Dodge opened the Public Hearing

Steven Bonita, resident, stated he lives five doors up from the project.

expressed his concerns regarding the parking issues.

He

Amy Rosa Harrington, CASA Board Member, spoke in support of the project.

Michelle Pacheco-Espinosa, student at Monterey Bay State University, stated

she was a former client of CASA. The support she received from CASA has

provided her with many opportunities and hopes to be a future CASA advocate.

Hearing no further public comments, Chairperson Dodge closed the Public

Hearing.

d) Commission Discussion

Commissioner Bobeda asked why the church parking lot located next to the

project was not being utilized for additional parking.

Ms. Aratin stated CASA did contact the property owner but the owner expressed

no interest in renting the parking lot or making it available.

Chairperson Dodge asked which General Plan was being referred to in the

presentation.

Ms. Aratin stated she was referring to the 2005 General Plan.

Commissioner Neighbors congratulated Ms. Pacheco-Espinosa on her personal

achievements. He said the staff and clients will not be utilizing all the parking

spaces at the same time.

Commissioner Bobeda asked about the location of the new fencing.

Mr. Messer stated new fencing will be located along the rear of the property and

for the children’s safety; fencing will be located in the front of the property.

Ms. Aratin stated the height of the rear and front fencing for the project is

standard size.

Commissioner DeHart complimented Ms. Aratin on her presentation and the staff

report. It was very detailed. She commended CASA for their efforts to involve

the neighborhood.

Vice-Chair Gallardo emphasized the importance of the services CASA provides

to the community and she supports their work. She commended CASA for their

thorough outreach with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Neighbors recommended the Commission to send a letter of

support signed by the Chair to the City Council recommending approval of the

project application. The Commission concurred with Commissioner Neighbors’

recommendation.

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Excerpt Feb 2 PC Minutes.doc

2

Attachment 10

Page 2 of 3


Secretary Tavantzis stated she would direct staff to compose the letter and it

would be included as an attachment to the staff report to the City Council.

Commissioner Rumrill stated he was very impressed with CASA’s work and

supports the project. He acknowledged Mr. Bonita’s concerns regarding the

parking.

Commissioner Bobeda stated she supports the project and concurs with the

other Commissioners’ comments. She thanked CASA for conducting the public

meetings to include the neighborhood.

Chaiperson Dodge stated he supports the project, believes in their preventive

services and is looking forward to their annual Open House. The increased

traffic and parking will impact the neighborhood. He has concerns regarding the

Variance and the allowance of the off-site parking to be more than 150 feet from

the property. Regarding Mr. Messer’s comment about the handicap accessible

parking space, he indicated it is not in the Planning Commission’s interest to omit

the handicap accessible parking space.

e) Motion:

7.0 ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Commissioner Neighbors, seconded by Commissioner Farhat,

and carried by the following vote to adopt a resolution recommending approval of

Application (PP2009-286) to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment

from (R-LD) Low Density Residential to (CG) General Commercial; Rezoning

from (R-1) Single Family Residential to (CN) Neighborhood Commercial; Major

Variance to the parking distance requirement, and Mitigated Negative

Declaration and directing staff to prepare a letter of support for the application to

be included as an attachment to the staff report recommending that the City

Council approve the project:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bobeda, DeHart, Farhat, Neighbors,

Rumrill, Gallardo, Dodge

NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None

Chairperson Dodge adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. The next Planning Commission

meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council

Chambers.

___________________________

Marcela Tavantzis, Secretary

Planning Commission

_________________________

Daniel Dodge, Chairperson

Planning Commission

M:\CDD\CC Packet\AGENDA 2010\02-23-10\813 Freedom\Excerpt Feb 2 PC Minutes.doc

3

Attachment 10

Page 3 of 3


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO.__________ (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE

DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

APPLICATION NO. (PP2009-286) FILED BY CASA

(COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES) OF

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, PROPERTY OWNER, FOR

THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM (R-LD)

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO (CG) GENERAL

COMMERCIAL, REZONING FROM (R-1) SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO (CN) NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMERCIAL, AND MAJOR VARIANCE TO THE

PARKING DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

PROPERTY LOCATED AT 813 FREEDOM

BOULEVARD (APN: 016-143-09), WATSONVILLE,

CALIFORNIA

WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures

for Application No. (PP2009-286) was prepared in conjunction with

a General Plan Amendment from (R-LD) Low Density Residential

to (CG) General Commercial, Rezoning from (R-1) Single Family

Residential to (CN) Neighborhood Commercial, and Major

Variance to the parking distance requirement for a parcel located

at 813 Freedom Boulevard (APN: 016-143-09), Watsonville,

California, which was filed by Court Appointed Special Advocates

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Mitigated Neg Dec FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:41:30 AM

AJS ______ CJP ______ CDD _____

1


(CASA) of Santa Cruz County, owner of the property, on

September 22, 2009; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA), an Initial Study prepared by the City has resulted in a

determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared

for the project; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration found that

the project, as conditioned, will not have a significant impact on

the environment; and

WHEREAS, the appropriate public noticing procedures have

been followed for both the environmental review and application,

and a public hearing was held for such permits according to the

Zoning Ordinance of the City of Watsonville (Watsonville Municipal

Code 14-10.900.; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all evidence

received, both oral and documentary and the matter was

submitted for decision.

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Mitigated Neg Dec FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:41:30 AM

2


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

1. That the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures,

attached hereto and marked as Page 1 of Exhibit “A,” is hereby

adopted for the above project.

2. That the Environmental Evaluation Initial Study,

attached hereto and marked pages 2 through 33 of Exhibit “A,” is

hereby adopted for the above Project.

****************************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Mitigated Neg Dec FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:41:30 AM

3


MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

APPLICANT: CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) of Santa Cruz County

ADDRESS: 294 Green Valley Rd., Suite 329, Watsonville, CA 95076

KIND OF PROJECT:

General Plan Amendment from (R-LD) Low Density Residential to (CG) General Commercial;

Rezoning from (R-1) Single Family Residential to (CN) Neighborhood Commercial; Major

Variance to the parking distance requirement, and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

LOCATION: 813 Freedom Blvd. (APN: 016-143-09)

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

Rezoning and General Plan Amendment with Major Variance to the parking distance

requirement to allow CASA to establish their offices in an existing residential building.

After careful analysis of the above described proposed project, the undersigned does hereby

declare that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment of the City of

Watsonville or the region around it within the terms and meaning of the California Environmental

Quality Act of 1970, if the following mitigation measures are followed:

MITIGATION MEASURE 1 (TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION):

Priority for on-site parking shall be given to advocates and visitors to the site. When necessary,

employees shall park in designated off-site parking spaces at Saint Patrick’s Church and

Brennan Square to make the on-site spaces available.

Monitoring: If calls regarding lack of on-street parking caused by CASA are received, staff will

observe the parking situation in the neighborhood, and bring the Major Variance back to the

Planning Commission for review, modification, or possible revocation, if necessary.

MITIGATION MEASURE 2 (TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION):

Parking lots at Mar Monte Clinic and Moreland Notre Dame School shall be utilized for afterhours

events consisting of more than 10 people. CASA shall coordinate with both locations to

determine availability of the parking lots.

Monitoring: If calls regarding lack of on-street parking caused by CASA are received, staff will

observe the parking situation in the neighborhood, and bring the Major Variance back to the

Planning Commission for review, modification, or possible revocation, if necessary.

Watsonville, California

Dated: _____02/03/10______

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

__/s/Marcela Tavantzis__________

Director of Environmental Quality

City of Watsonville, California

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 1 of 33


Environmental Evaluation:

Initial Study

1. Project title: 813 Freedom Blvd

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Watsonville PO Box 50,000 Watsonville, CA 95077

3. Contact person and phone number: Keith Boyle, 831-768-3073

4. Project location: APN: 016-143-09, 813 Freedom Blvd

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: CASA of Santa Cruz County, 294 Green Valley Road Suite

329, Santa Cruz, CA 95076

6. General plan designation: Residential, Low Density

7. Zoning: Residential, Single Family

8. Description of Project: General Plan text amendment of property from Residential, Low Density

to General Commercial, Zoning amendment from Residential, Single Family to Neighborhood

Commercial; Major Variance to allow parking off-site further than 150 feet from the property to

allow for general office use.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The property is located at the tip of an existing single family

residential district, adjacent to a church and hotel, and across the street from a public park.

10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 2 of 33


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one

impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards & Hazardous

Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality x Land Use/Planning

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

x Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of

Significance

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X I find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not

be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or

agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be

prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially

significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on

attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze

only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or

mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or

mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

_________________________________

Signature

___________________________________

Printed Name

____________________________

Date

____________________________

For

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 3 of 33


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that

are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the

parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if

the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to

projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No

Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well

as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,

based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as

well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and

construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may

occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially

significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially

Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be

significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the

determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated”

applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from

“Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency

must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to

a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,”

may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or

other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or

negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should

identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above

checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier

document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such

effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with

Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which

were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to

which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to

information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,

include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 4 of 33


7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other

sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different

formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this

checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is

selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;

and

b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than

significance.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 5 of 33


Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigations

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on

a scenic vista (Source 2)

X

b Substantially damage scenic

resources, including, but no limited to,

trees, rock outcroppings, and historic

buildings within a state scenic highway

(Source 2)

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing

visual character or quality of the site and

its surroundings (Source 2)

X

d) Create a new source of substantial

light or glare which would adversely affect

day or night views in the area (Source 2)

X

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are

significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land

Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of

Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would

the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Farmland), as shown on the

maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural

use (Source 2)

b) Conflict with existing zoning for

agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

contract (Source 2)

c) Involve other changes in the

existing environment which, due to their

location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural

use (Source 2)

X

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 6 of 33


III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality

management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable air quality

plan (Source 2)

b) Violate any air quality standard or

contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation (Source 5)

c) Result in a cumulatively

considerable net increase of any criteria

pollutant for which the project region is

non-attainment under and applicable

federal or state ambient air quality

standard (including releasing emissions

which exceed quantitative thresholds for

ozone precursors) (Source 2)

d) Expose sensitive receptors to

substantial pollutant concentrations

(Source 2)

e) Create objectionable odors affecting

a substantial number of people (Source

2)

X

X

X

X

X

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect,

either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species identified as

a candidate, sensitive, or special status

species in local or regional plans, policies,

or regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Source 1)

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on

any riparian habitat or other sensitive

natural community identified in local or

regional plans, policies, regulations or by

the California Department of Fish and

Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service

(Source 1)

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 7 of 33


c) Have a substantial adverse effect on

federally protected wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal

pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct

removal, filling, hydrological interruption,

or other means (Source 1)

d) Interfere substantially with the

movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or with

established native resident or migratory

wildlife corridors, or impede the use of

native wildlife nursery sites (Source 1)

e) Conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources,

such as a tree preservation policy or

ordinance (Source 1)

f) Conflict with the provisions of an

adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,

Natural Community Conservation Plan, or

other approved local, regional, or state

habitat conservation plan (Source 1)

X

X

X

X

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change

in the significance of a historical resource

as defined in §15064.5 (Source 2)

b) Cause a substantial adverse change

in the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to §15064.5 (Source

2)

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a

unique paleontological resource or site or

unique geologic feature (Source 2)

d) Disturb any human remains,

including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries (Source 2)

X

X

X

X

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to

potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death

involving: (Source 2)

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 8 of 33


I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map

issued by the State Geologist for the

area or based on other substantial

evidence of a known fault Refer to

Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42. (Source 2)

II) Strong seismic ground shaking

(Source 2)

X

X

III)

Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction (Source 2)

X

IV) Landslides (Source 2) X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or

the loss of topsoil (Source 2)

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil

that is unstable, or that would become

unstable as a result of the project, and

potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,

lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction

or collapse (Source 2)

d) Be located on expansive soil, as

defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform

Building Code (1994), creating substantial

risks to life or property (Source 2)

X

X

X

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of

hazardous materials (Source 2)

b) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through

reasonably foreseeable upset and

accident conditions involving the release

of hazardous materials into the

environment (Source 2)

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within one-quarter

mile of an existing or proposed school

(Source 2)

X

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 9 of 33


d) Be located on a site which is

included on a list of hazardous materials

sites compiled pursuant to Government

Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,

would it create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment (Source 2)

e) For a project located within an

airport land use plan or, where such a plan

has not been adopted, within two miles of

a public airport or public use airport, would

the project result in a safety hazard for

people residing or working in the project

area (Source 2)

f) For a project within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project result in

a safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area (Source 2)

g) Impair implementation of or

physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or emergency

evacuation plan (Source 2)

h) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving wildland fires, including where

wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas

or where residences are intermixed with

wildlands (Source 2)

X

X

X

X

X

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards

or waste discharge requirements (Source

3)

b) Substantially deplete groundwater

supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there

would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or

a lowering of the local groundwater table

level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting

nearby wells would drop to a level

which would not support existing land uses

or planned uses for which permits have

been granted) (Source 3)

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 10 of 33


c) Substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, in a manner

which would result in substantial erosion

or siltation on- or off site (Source 3)

d) Substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, or substantially

increase the rate or amount of surface

runoff in a manner which would result in

flooding on- or off-site (Source 3 )

e) Create or contribute runoff water

which would exceed the capacity of

existing or planned storm water drainage

systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff (Source 3 )

f) Otherwise substantially degrade

water quality (Source3 )

g) Place housing within a 100-year

flood hazard area as mapped on a federal

Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood

Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard

delineation map (Source 2)

h) Place within 100-year flood hazard

area structures which would impede or

redirect flood flows (Source 2)

I) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving flooding, including flooding As a

result of the failure of a levee or dam

(Source 2)

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow (Source 2)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established

community (Source 2)

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 11 of 33


) Conflict with any applicable land use

plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

with jurisdiction over the project (including,

but not limited to the general plan, specific

plan, local coastal program, or zoning

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of

avoiding or mitigating an environmental

effect (Source 2)

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan (Source 2)

X

X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would be of

value to the region and the residents of

the state (Source 2)

b) Result in the loss of availability of a

locally-important mineral resource

recovery site delineated on a local general

plan, specific plan or other land use plan

(Source 2)

X

X

XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or

generation of noise levels in excess of

standards established in the local general

plan or noise ordinance, or applicable

standards of other agencies (Source 2)

b) Exposure of persons to or

generation of excessive ground borne

vibration or ground borne noise levels

(Source 2)

c) A substantial permanent increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project

(Source 2)

d) A substantial temporary or periodic

increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing

without the project (Source 2)

X

X

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 12 of 33


e) For a project located within an

airport land use plan or, where such a

plan has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to

excessive noise levels (Source 2)

f) For a project within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project

area to excessive noise levels (Source 2)

X

X

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth

in an area, either directly (for example, by

proposing new homes and businesses) or

indirectly (for example, through extension

of roads or other infrastructure) (Source

2)

b) Displace substantial numbers of

existing housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing

elsewhere (Source 2)

c) Displace substantial numbers of

people, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere (Source

2)

X

X

X

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in

substantial adverse physical impacts

associated with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities,

need for new or physically altered

governmental facilities, the construction of

which could cause significant

environmental impacts, in order to

maintain acceptable service ratios,

response times or other performance

objectives for any of the public services:

(Source 5)

I) Fire Protection (Source 2) X

II) Police Protection (Source 2) X

III) Schools (Source 2) X

IV) Parks (Source 2) X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 13 of 33


V) Other public facilities (Source 2) X

XIV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use

of existing neighborhood and regional

parks or other recreational facilities such

that substantial physical deterioration of

the facility would occur or be accelerated

(Source 2)

b) Does the project include recreational

facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities which

might have an adverse physical effect on

the environment (Source 2)

X

X

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is

substantial in relation to the existing traffic

load and capacity of the street system

(i.e., result in a substantial increase in

either the number of vehicle trips, the

volume to capacity ratio on roads, or

congestion at intersections) (Source 2)

b) Exceed, either individually or

cumulatively, a level of service standard

established by the county congestion

management agency for designated roads

or highways (Source 2)

c) Result in a change in air traffic

patterns, including either an increase in

traffic levels or a change in location that

results in substantial safety risks (Source

2)

d) Substantially increase hazards due

to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible

uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Source 2)

e) Result in inadequate emergency

access (Source 2)

X

X

X

X

X

f) Result in inadequate parking

capacity (Source 5)

X

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 14 of 33


a) Exceed wastewater treatment

requirements of the applicable Regional

Water Quality Control Board (Source 2)

b) Require or result in the construction

of new storm water drainage facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects (Source

2)

c) Have sufficient water supplies

available to serve the project from existing

entitlement and resources, or are new or

expanded entitlements needed (Source2)

d) Result in determination by the

wastewater treatment provider which

serves or may serve the project that it has

adequate capacity to serve the project’s

projected demand in addition to the

provider’s existing commitments (Source

2)

e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the

project’s solid waste disposal needs

(Source 2)

f) Comply with federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid

waste (Source 2)

X

X

X

X

X

X

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential

to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or endangered

plant or animal or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of

California history or prehistory

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 15 of 33


) Does the project have impacts that

are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable (“Cumulatively

considerable” means that the incremental

effects of a project are considerable when

viewed in connection with the effects of

past projects, and the effects of probable

future projects)

c) Does the project have

environmental effects which will cause

substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly

X

X

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 16 of 33


Initial Study Narrative

813 Freedom Boulevard

CASA of Santa Cruz County

I. Aesthetics

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista

The General Plan text amendment and rezoning of the parcel at 813 Freedom Boulevard will not

change the appearance of the existing building. The property is not in the vicinity of a scenic

vista, and therefore there will be no impact.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway

The project involves a General Plan text amendment and rezoning of a parcel from Residential to

Commercial. There are no scenic resources in the vicinity of the proposed project site.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its

surroundings

No new construction is proposed as part of the rezoning. The project will not degrade the visual

quality of the site because it is not visible to most public areas.

Mitigations: None required.

(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or

night views in the area

The rezoning of the property from residential to commercial will not include any new

construction, and will not cause any new light or glare.

Mitigations: None required.

II. Agricultural Resources

(a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance

(farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use

The property is located at the edge of a residential and commercial zone. The project site is not

near any designated farmland.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 17 of 33


Mitigations: None required

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract

The property is located at the edge of a residential and commercial zone. The project site is not

near any designated farmland.

Mitigations: None required

(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,

could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use

The property is located at the edge of a residential and commercial zone. The project site is not

near any designated farmland.

Mitigations: None required

III. Air Quality

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan

The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District’s Air Quality Management Plan

includes forecasts on which future air quality projections are made. The General Plan text

amendment and rezoning of the parcel from residential to commercial will not affect air quality

in the area.

Mitigations: None required.

b-c) Air Emissions

The project site is located in the Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District

(MBUAPCD), which includes Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties. The MBUAPCD

has jurisdiction over the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), in which the site is located.

The NCCAB is currently in attainment for federal PM10 (particulates less than 10 microns in

diameter) standards and State and federal nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon “moderate

non-attainment” area for federal ozone standards to a “maintenance/ attainment” area. The

NCCAB is classified as a non-attainment area for State ozone and PM10 standards.

The General Plan text amendment and rezoning of the parcel from residential to commercial will

not affect air quality in the area.

Mitigations: none required.

c) Objectionable odors No odors are expected from the project.

Mitigations: None required.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 18 of 33


d.) Expose sensitive receptors No impact.

Mitigations: None required.

IV. Biological Resources

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any

species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,

policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

The project is located in an urbanized portion of the City, surrounded by both residential and

commercial zoned properties. There is no natural, undisturbed habitat in the vicinity of the

project site, and the rezoning of the parcel will have no impact on any sensitive or special status

species.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The project is located in an urbanized portion of the City, surrounded by both residential and

commercial zoned properties. There is no natural, undisturbed habitat in the vicinity of the

project site, and the rezoning of the parcel will have no impact on any riparian habitat or other

sensitive natural community.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404

of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through

direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means

There are no wetlands located in the vicinity of the parcel, and there are no sensitive habitats

located on or in the vicinity of the parcel.

Mitigations: None required.

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife

species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of

native wildlife nursery sites

The project is located in an urbanized portion of the City, surrounded by both residential and

commercial zoned properties. There is no migratory path or wildlife corridor in the vicinity of

the project site.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 19 of 33


Mitigations: None required.

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a

tree preservation policy or ordinance

The project is located in an urbanized portion of the City, surrounded by both residential and

commercial zoned properties. The proposed rezoning will not conflict with any conservation

policies or ordinances.

Mitigations: None required.

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan

The project is located in an urbanized portion of the City, surrounded by both residential and

commercial zoned properties. There is no conservation plan for the area.

Mitigations: None required.

V. Cultural Resources

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in

§15064.5

The property is part of the Buena Vista Heights Adamson Subdivision, recorded in 1911,

however, the subdivision was not developed until after 1920. The house is over 50 years old, but

has not been identified on any local, state, or national register as a historic resource. The General

Plan amendment and rezoning of the parcel includes a proposal to use the existing residence as

offices, without significantly modifying the exterior of the building.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource

pursuant to §15064.5

No archaeological assessment has been completed for the subject parcel, however the site is

developed, and located in an urbanized portion of the City. The project does not propose any

new construction.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature

There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the parcel, which is

relatively flat land.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 20 of 33


(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries

The General Plan does not define this area as a potential archaeological resource site. No

impacts are anticipated by the approval of the project.

Mitigations: None required

VI. Geology and Soils

(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of

loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on

other substantial evidence of a known fault Refer to Division of Mines and Geology

Special Publication 42.

The site is located in a seismic setting that will likely experience significant seismic shaking

during the lifetime of the project. The project site is located near five known faults in the

Santa Cruz area, being the San Andreas 1906 segment, San Gregorio, Zayante-Vergeles,

Monterey Bay- Tularcitos, and the Sargent. The closest fault is the Zayante-Vergeles at 3 ½

miles distant.

Seismic hazards that may affect the project site include ground shaking, ground surface fault

rupture, liquefaction and lateral spreading, and seismically induced slope instabilities.

Research was not performed for the presence of active faults on the specific project site,

however, because the nearest known active or potentially active fault is mapped at 3 ½ miles

from the site, the potential for ground surface fault rupture is low.

Mitigations: None required.

2. Strong seismic ground shaking

Because ground shaking will be felt on the site during the lifetime of the project, design of

the project should be based on the 2007 California Building Code. All new construction or

modification of the existing house shall meet the requirements of the California Building

Code.

Mitigations: None required.

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction

Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine grained sands or coarse silts, which are

not extant on the project site.

Mitigations: None required.

4. Landslides

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 21 of 33


No landsides are identified in the General Plan. The threat of landslides in this area is

insignificant.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil

The soil is made up of interlayered sands, silts, and clays. The soil has moderate to high

plasticity and possess potentially moderate to highly expansive properties. The surface soils

have been classified as moderately erodable. However, installation of the solar array will not be

impacted by the soil conditions on the site

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a

result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse

The proposed project will not create an unstable condition with the soil. The grading proposed

will not result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Mitigations: None required.

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code

(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property

Because of the nature of the project the soil conditions are of minimal issue for the installation

of solar arrays.

Mitigations: None required

VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,

use, or disposal of hazardous materials

The solar array will not generate , or dispose of hazardous materials in their daily operation.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable

upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment

There will be no threat to the public regarding the release of hazardous materials into the

environment by the construction or operation of the solar array.

Mitigations: None required.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 22 of 33


(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,

or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school

There are no schools located within a one-quarter mile radius to the subject property.

Mitigations: None required.

(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled

pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant

hazard to the public or the environment

Although the site is a reclaimed landfill development of a solar array that will not involve human

habitation will not be impacted by the location above a landfill.

Mitigations: None required.

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a

safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area

The project is located outside of the land use compatibility areas of the airport and will have no

impact.

Mitigations: None required.

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area

The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Mitigations: None required.

(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan

or emergency evacuation plan

The project is located on the existing landfill and is accessible from San Andreas Road. The

project will not impair any existing or proposed emergency response or evacuation plans.

Mitigations: None required.

(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland

fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are

intermixed with wildlands

The subject parcel is located on the existing landfill. Solar panels are not flammable and will not

involve human habitation . Therefore there will be no increased risk to the public or the

environment for wildland fires.

Mitigations: None required.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 23 of 33


VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality

(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements

The project site will be designed to direct all drainage from the development to the existing

drainage ditch at the bottom of the slope that is directed to an existing detention pond in the

northeastern corner of the parcel.

Mitigations: Project shall comply with the City’s Stormwater Management plan and NPDES

Best Management Practices. Project shall develop stormwater management improvements in

substantial conformance with conceptual plans.

(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater

recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local

groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a

level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been

granted)

This project will not cause significant impacts to the groundwater table level or groundwater

recharge.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial

erosion or siltation on- or off site

The project will involve development of some additional impervious surface that will require

proper drainage that is directed away from the existing riparian area.

Mitigations: In order to prevent a significant impact occurring the project drainage must be

designed to meet City Best Management practices, NPDES standards, public works drainage

standards, and Low Impact Development (LID) standards.

(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site

No stream will be altered by the project. The project is designed to maintain existing predevelopment

and post development flows and therefore off- site flooding will not be an issue.

Mitigations: none required.

(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 24 of 33


In order to remain consistent with the existing storm drain design in the vicinity of the project,

the site runoff will be directed to an existing above ground drainage pond in the north east corner

of the site, through an existing channel at the base of the landfill.

The project will not cause substantial additional polluted runoff.

Mitigations: In order to prevent a significant impact occurring the project drainage must be

designed to meet City Best Management practices, NPDES standards, public works drainage

standards, and Low Impact Development (LID) standards.

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality

The project will not create additional discharge to the City’s sanitary sewer system.

Mitigations: None required.

(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map

This project will not affect the 100-year flood hazard area, and will not place any housing into

such an area.

Mitigations: None required.

(h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood

flows

The project site and surrounding parcels are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.

The development of the solar array will not place any structures in a 100-year flood zone.

Mitigations: None required.

(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,

including flooding As a result of the failure of a levee or dam

There are no levees or dams located near the project site. Therefore, the risk of failure due to a

loss of such levee or dam is not extant as part of this project.

Mitigations: None required.

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

The subject parcel is not subject to any catastrophic events such as a seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow.

Mitigations: None required.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 25 of 33


IX. Land Use and Planning

(a) Physically divide an established community

The subject parcel is located in the Coastal Zone E zoning district which is recognized as the

City’s landfill. Amendments were adopted in 2008 that allows a solar power system to act

as reclamation of the completed portion of the landfill. The project will not divide any

established community.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect

The construction and establishment of a Solar power system listed as a Conditionally

permitted use in the Coastal Zone E (landfill) district. The zoning ordinance allows

installation of solar arrays as part of the City’s reclamation efforts. With the approval of a

Coastal Permit, by the Community Development Department, the proposed project will be in

compliance with all regulations included in the City of Watsonville Municipal Code.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan

As outlined in the biotic report, the subject parcel is not part of a habitat conservation plan or

natural community conservation plan. The site is located between developed landfill sites

properties and does not contain any sensitive, listed, or endangered plant or animal species.

Mitigations: None required.

X. Mineral Resources

(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to

the region and the residents of the state

The project site is not located on, adjacent or near to known mineral resources or

recovery sites.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan

There are no mineral resources known to exist on or in the vicinity of the project site. This

area has not been delineated on the general plan or any other land use plan as being a locallyimportant

mineral resource recovery site.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 26 of 33


Mitigations: None required.

XI. Noise

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies

The City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan identifies maximum allowable exterior sound

levels. Because the proposed project does not have the potential of increasing exterior

sound levels, a noise study was not required as part of this project application.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground

borne noise levels

The project will not generate any ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project

The project will not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the

vicinity of the project.

Mitigations: None required.

(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project

The project will not cause substantial temporary or periodic increases in the ambient noise

levels in the vicinity of the parcel.

Mitigations: None required.

XII. Population and Housing

(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by

proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of

roads or other infrastructure)

The solar array will have no permanent residential population. The project will not cause

population growth in the area.

Mitigations: None required.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 27 of 33


(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere

No housing will be affected by the proposed development.

Mitigations: None required

(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere

The proposed development will not cause the displacement of any people.

Mitigations: None required.

XIII. Public Services

(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the

provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically

altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or

other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1. Fire Protection

2. Police Protection

3. Schools

4. Parks

5. Other public facilities

The construction of the solar array will not impact the existing governmental

infrastructure or increase the need for more fire or police personnel or protection. The

construction of the project will not require the creation of more parks, schools, or other

public facilities, nor will it impact any existing parks, schools, or other public facilities.

Mitigations: None required.

XIV. Recreation

(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would

occur or be accelerated

There are no parks or recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The project

will not generate the need for additional parks and recreation facility for the City.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion

of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the

environment

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 28 of 33


Because of the landfill nature of the project area, the need for additional facilities of this

nature is not required.

Mitigations: None required.

XV. Transportation and Traffic

(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load

and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the

number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at

intersections)

The project will not require any permanent housing and minimal maintenance operations.

Therefore the project will generate very negligible traffic. No traffic study was warranted

due to the limited nature of the project.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the

county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways

As stated above, the project will generate negligible traffic.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or

a change in location that results in substantial safety risks

The project is not located in an airport Safety Compatibility Zone and will not create a

significant a impact on the airport. The air traffic patterns for the nearby Watsonville Airport

will not be affected by the construction of the solar array project.

Mitigations: None required.

(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)

There is no part of the circulation pattern for the proposed project that will cause or

substantially increase traffic hazards on the project site or in the vicinity of the project.

Mitigations: None required.

(e) Result in inadequate emergency access

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 29 of 33


The site has been designed to allow adequate access around the entire site. The circulation

pattern for the project meets all requirements for emergency access.

Mitigations: None required.

(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity

Limited parking is required for the project because it is a self sustaining project. Existing

parking for the landfill is adequate to serve the proposed facilities.

Mitigations: None required.

XVI. Utilities and Service Systems

(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality

Control Board

The Watsonville Waste water treatment facility has the capacity to treat 12.1 million

gallons of wastewater per day. The current average daily flow is about 7.0 million gallons

per day, leaving a capacity of approximately five million gallons per day.

The proposed project would not generate additional waste water and would not have an

impact.

Mitigations: None required.

(b) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion

of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental

effects

Runoff from the project site is directed to a an above ground detention basin.

The runoff generated by this project will be maintained on site and be released in a manner

that will not exceed pre-development levels. Therefore the project will not require the

upgrade or construction of new off-site storm drain facilities.

Mitigations: None required.

(c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed

The project will not generate additional demand for water.

Therefore, the project will not constitute a significant impact to the City’s water resources.

Mitigations: None required.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 30 of 33


(d) Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve

the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in

addition to the provider’s existing commitments

See discussion and Mitigations above under XVI.(a) Utilities and Service Systems.

(e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s

solid waste disposal needs

Solid waste services are provided by the City of Watsonville Public Works Department

for areas within the City limits. The City owned landfill allows for disposal of

municipal and commercial solid waste and has adequate capacity to serve the project’s

projected demand.

Mitigations: None required.

(f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste

See discussion and Mitigations above under XVI.(a) Utilities and Service Systems.

XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance

(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or

prehistory

The project will not result in significant biological impacts or cultural resource impacts

with implementation of the proposed Mitigation Measures outlined by this Initial

Study.

(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a

project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and

the effects of probable future projects)

The project proposes to construct a 8 acre solar array that will generate up to 4700

kilowatts of clean energy on a 10 acre reclaimed landfill site. The project will not result

in short-term, temporary impacts related to dust, noise and will not result in significant

cumulative impacts.

(c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects

on human beings, either directly or indirectly

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 31 of 33


As evaluated in this Initial Study, the proposed project would either have no impact, a

less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with Mitigations outlined

by this Initial Study, on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 32 of 33


Sources:

1. Biological Assessment for Property, 730 San Andreas Road, Watsonville,

California prepared by Laurie Kiguchi Biological Consultant. July 15, 2009.

2. City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report.

3. Existing drainage plan for the Watsonville Landfill.

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Exhibit A Neg Dec.docx

EXHIBIT "A"

Page 33 of 33


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO.

(CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE APPROVING THE

SEVENTEENTH (17TH) AMENDMENT TO THE

WATSONVILLE 2005 GENERAL PLAN TO RE-

DESIGNATE ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER

016-143-09 LOCATED AT 813 FREEDOM

BOULEVARD, WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

FROM (R-LD) RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO

(CG) GENERAL COMMERCIAL; AND

DIRECTING CHANGES TO BE MADE ON THE

LAND USE DIAGRAM OF THE WATSONVILLE

2005 GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE

WHEREAS, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of

Santa Cruz County, applicant and property owner, filed

Application No. (PP2009-286) on September 22, 2009, for a

Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment from

(R-LD) Residential Low Density to (CG) General Commercial,

Rezoning from (R-1) Single Family

Residential to (CN)

Neighborhood Commercial, and Major Variance to the parking

distance requirement for a parcel located at 813 Freedom

Boulevard (APN: 016-143-09), Watsonville, California; and

Reso No. ___ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

AJS ______ CJP ______ CDD _______

1


WHEREAS, a seventeenth (17 th ) amendment to the

Watsonville 2005 General Plan is proposed which will modify the

General Plan Land Use designation on the Land Use Diagram of

Assessor’s Parcel Number 016-143-09 located at 813 Freedom

Boulevard, Watsonville, California from (R-LD) Residential Low

Density to (CG) General Commercial; and

WHEREAS, subject to the Applicant’s application for

rezoning from (R-1) Single Family Residential to (CN)

Neighborhood Commercial, the requested General Plan

Amendment would satisfy the requirement of State law applicable

to General Law cities for zoning and General Plan consistency;

and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65358(b) of the

Government Code, the General Plan may only be amended four

(4) times during any calendar year; and

WHEREAS, on May 24, 1994, the Watsonville 2005 General

Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 137-94 (CM); and

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

2


WHEREAS, on November 7, 1995, the Watsonville 2005

General Plan was amended by Resolution No. 299-95 (CM)

adopting GPA-1-95 thereby affecting 451 East Beach Street.

GPA-1-95 was the first (1st) amendment to the Watsonville 2005

General Plan and the first (1st) amendment of the 1995 calendar

year; and

WHEREAS, on March 25, 1997, the Watsonville 2005

General Plan was amended by Resolution No. 89-97 (CM)

adopting GPA-2-94 thereby affecting certain lands west of Lee

Road owned by Vincent Tai. GPA-2-94 was the second (2nd)

amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the first

(1st) amendment of the 1997 calendar year; and

WHEREAS, on July 22, 1997, the Watsonville 2005 General

Plan was amended by Resolution No. 235-97 (CM) adopting

GPA-2-97 thereby affecting certain property at 527 Center Street

Watsonville, owned by John Fiorovich. GPA-2-97 was the third

(3rd) amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the

second (2nd) amendment of the 1997 calendar year; and

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

3


WHEREAS, on November 4, 1997, the Watsonville 2005

General Plan was amended by Resolution No. 335-97 (CM)

adopting GPA-3-97 thereby affecting certain property at 567 Auto

Center Drive owned by Robert Erickson. GPA-3-97 was the fourth

(4th) amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the

third (3rd) amendment of the 1997 calendar year; and

WHEREAS, on April 28, 1998, the Watsonville 2005 General

Plan was amended by Resolution No. 132-98 (CM) adopting

GPA-1-98 to re-designate 98 parcels in the vicinity of Airport

Boulevard and Loma Prieta Avenue. GPA-1-98 was the fifth (5th)

amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the first

(1st) amendment of the 1998 calendar year; and

WHEREAS, on April 28, 1998, the Watsonville 2005 General

Plan was amended by Resolution No. 134-98 (CM) adopting

GPA-2-98 to re-designate 141.2 acres outside the City Limits of

the City of Watsonville (Freedom/Carey Annexation). GPA-2-98

was the sixth (6th) amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

4


Plan and the second (2nd) amendment of the 1998 calendar

year; and

WHEREAS, on December 8, 1998, the Watsonville 2005

General Plan was amended by Resolution No. 311-98 (CM)

adopting GPA-3-98 to amend the Land Use Diagram of the Land

Use and Community Development Element of the Watsonville

2005 General Plan requesting re-designation of Assessor’s Parcel

Numbers 019-861-20 & 21 as part of a mixed use hospital re-use

development project (298 Green Valley Road, Watsonville). GPA

3-98 was the seventh (7th) amendment to the Watsonville 2005

General Plan and the third (3rd) amendment of the 1998 calendar

year; and

WHEREAS, on July 27, 1999, the City Council adopted

Resolution No. 224-99 (CM) approving the eighth (8th)

amendment to the Housing Element, 1991 - 1996 of the

Watsonville 2005 General Plan (GPA-2-99) and the first (1st)

amendment of 1999 calendar year; and

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

5


WHEREAS, on March 10, 2000, the City Council adopted

Resolution No. 71-00 (CM) approving the ninth (9th) amendment

to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan (GPA-1-00) and the first

(1st) amendment of 2000 to eliminate the Lands West of Lee

Road as a “Special Study Area”; and

WHEREAS, on August 22, 2000, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 245-00 (CM) approving the tenth (10th) and the

second (2nd) amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan

(GPA-2-00) to amend the Watsonville 2005 Local Coastal

Program to allow development of the New Millennium High

School; and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 142-01 (CM) approving the eleventh (11th)

amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the first

(1st) amendment of the 2001 calendar year by amending the

Housing Element of such General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on June 26, 2001, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 170-01 (CM) approving the twelfth (12th)

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

6


amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the second

(2nd) amendment of the 2001 calendar year by amending the

Watsonville 2005 Local Coastal Program Land Use plan to make

minor modifications to Figure 2A, Sections III C.3 (p) and C.4; and

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2002, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 10-02 (CM) amending the twelfth (12th)

amendment and (1st) amendment of the 2002 calendar year to

the Watsonville 2005 General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2002, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 52-02 (CM) approving the thirteenth (13th)

amendment

to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the

second (2nd) amendment of the 2002 calendar year to redesignate

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 018-151-14, 28, 29, and 30

(640, 646, and 652 Main Street) from Central Commercial to

Public/Quasi-Public; and

WHEREAS, on March 12, 2002, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 63-02 (CM) approving the fourteenth (14 th )

Amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the third

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

7


(3 rd ) amendment of the 2002 calendar year, to re-designate

Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-321-04 (20 Holm Road) from

Industrial to Residential Medium Density on the Land Use

Diagram of the Land Use and Community Development Element

to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit townhouse

development; and

WHEREAS, on September 24, 2002, the Council adopted

Resolution No. 245-02 (CM) approving the fifteenth (15 th )

Amendment to the Watsonville 2005 General Plan, and the fourth

(4 th ) amendment of the 2002 calendar year to re-designate a

portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-201-04 from

Public/Quasi Public to Residential - Low Density (comprising

12,000 square feet) and Environmental Management - Open

Space (EM-OS on the Land Use Diagram of the Land Use and

Community Development Element); and

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, the voters of the City of

Watsonville approved the Orderly Growth and Agricultural

Protection measure to amend the Watsonville 2005 General Plan

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

8


which became the sixteenth (16 th ) amendment to the General

Plan and the fifth (5 th ) amendment of the 2002 calendar year; and

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2010, a duly noticed public

hearing was conducted on the proposed application for which the

Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-10 (PC)

recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan

Amendment from (R-LD) Residential Low Density to (CG)

General Commercial for a parcel located at 813 Freedom

Boulevard (APN: 016-143-09), Watsonville, California; and

WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment, if

adopted, will be the seventeenth (17 th ) amendment to the

Watsonville 2005 General Plan and the first (1 st ) amendment of

the 2010 calendar year; and

WHEREAS, the appropriate public noticing procedures have

been followed for the General Plan Amendment amending the

Land Use Diagram from (R-LD) Residential Low Density to (CG)

General Commercial for the parcel located at 813 Freedom

Boulevard (APN: 016-143-09), Watsonville, California, and a

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

9


public hearing was held for such permits according to the Zoning

Ordinance of the City of Watsonville (Watsonville Municipal Code

14-10.900.; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all evidence

received, both oral and documentary, and the matter was

submitted for decision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

Good cause appearing and upon the Findings, attached

hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A,” the City Council of

the City of Watsonville does hereby approve amendment to the

Land Use Diagram of the Watsonville 2005 General Plan of the

City of Watsonville, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B,” to

change the designation from (R-LD) Residential Low Density to

(CG) General Commercial for the property located at 813

Freedom Boulevard (APN:016-143-09), Watsonville, California.

****************************************

Reso No. _____ (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom GP Amendment FINAL 211.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:03:27 AM

10


CITY OF WATSONVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

Application No. PP2009-286

APN: 016-143-09

Applicant: CASA

Hearing Date: February 23, 2010

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS (Section 14-12.708)

1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies embodied in the

General Plan.

Supportive Evidence

The General Plan contains specific policies relating to all aspects of City life,

including land use, public safety, and community character. The scope of the

project is to provide adequate space for CASA to carry out their mission of

providing a voice for abused and neglected children in the juvenile court process.

Goal 7.1 of the General Plan calls for the City to be committed to providing a safe

and protective environment for children. CASA provides a program to help children

navigate the foster care system through the help of volunteer advocates that spend

time with the children. The creation of a home-like environment for CASA and the

children that they serve follows the intent of Goal 7.1 of the General Plan.

Goal 4.B.1 of the General Plan calls for the evaluation of existing land use patterns

prior to approval of new development that may prove disruptive to local circulation.

The City has carefully evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendment and its

potential effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The property is located at the

edge of a commercial zone. The adjacent church currently has a General Plan

designation of Public/Quasi Public, however in the 2030 General Plan the

designation was changed to General Commercial. Due to the unique nature of

CASA, the use will be compatible with the neighborhood and provide a buffer

between existing commercial use and the residential neighborhood.

General Plan Policy 4-H calls for the assistance to programs designed to address

special needs populations including children. CASA is an organization dedicated to

helping children in the foster care and court systems. Their goal is to provide the

children in their program with a safe, loving home to heal from a life of abuse and

neglect so they can grow into healthy, contributing members of society.

2. That the proposed amendment is compatible to the extent possible with the actual

and general planned use of the adjacent properties.

EXHIBIT “A”

Page 1 of 2


Supportive Evidence

The property is located at the edge of an existing neighborhood, adjacent to a

church and across the street from Callaghan Park. The street melds into a

commercial district as Freedom Boulevard extends toward Main Street. The

adjacent church property has a General Plan designation of Public/Quasi Public in

the 2005 General Plan, and a General Commercial designation in the 2030 General

Plan. To the east of the property, residential lots are designated Residential-Low

Density.

On the adjacent portion of the neighborhood to the northeast of the project site,

properties have General Plan designations of General Commercial to

accommodate the commercial nature of the majority of the Freedom Boulevard

corridor. Further to the southwest on Freedom Boulevard, properties are also

designated General Commercial. The General Plan amendment of the property at

813 Freedom Boulevard will be compatible with the designation of adjacent

properties, and will not disrupt the existing neighborhood.

Given the location of the property, CASA’s use will serve as a buffer between the

commercial uses on one side and the residential areas on the other. This will

minimize the potential for conflicting adjacent land uses and enhance the desirable

characteristics of the residential areas.

Because of the unique residential nature of the proposed use and the location of

the property at the edge of a commercial zone, the General Plan amendment is

acceptable. Because of the distinctly residential character of the adjacent homes

on Freedom Boulevard, there is no potential to extend the commercial designation.

EXHIBIT “A”

Page 2 of 2


11

11

5

2

4

16

18

24

28

A

217A

03

231

14

Adopted by City Council

Date: May 24, 1994

229

9TH ST

25

225

221

217

19

12

Resolution No. 137-94 (CM)

Amended by City Council

Date

104 1

15

15

11

7

226

211A

2 4 8

102

6

208

212

216

207

9

8TH ST

Resolution No.

11-95 #299-95 (CM)

3-97 #89-97 (CM)

7-97 #235-97 (CM)

11-97 #335-97 (CM)

4-98 #132-98 (CM)

4-98 #134-98 (CM)

12-98 #311-98 (CM)

3-00 #71-00 (CM)

9-02 #245-02 (CM)

11-02 #304-02 (CM)*

8

220

224

HYDE ST

111

4

41

800

45

49

53

ALTON WY

57

21

108-118

107

2

22

26

24

21-31

7TH ST

1 3

9 3

MAIN ST

44

15

1

34

30

26

16

WESTERN DR

40

32

28

23

19

22

2

27

23

19

15

WEST HIGH ST

A

331

15

9

39

35

325

24

20

16

12

EASTERN DR

11

24

707

CI

SOUTHERN

18

GONZALES ST

751

749

20

326

322

14

32

24

771

757

732

10

320

781

740

720

921

919

905

7

318

801

855

845

835

A 819

813

762X

833

827

825

217

213

207

155

151

209

FREEDOM BL

910

908

906

904

15

14

10

854

850

212

147

17

846

133

21

EAST HIGH ST

338

18

322

108

144

22

225

114

140

136

132

318

314

310

306

107

4 5 6 8

9

3

2

1

101

115

111

105

208

BRENNAN ST

327

118

100

108

104

321

317

315

111

SUDDEN ST

215

211

207

119

123

119

115

113

122

126

124

118

116

14

112

226

Location of Proposed General

Plan Map Amendment from RLD to GC

129

330

126

328

124

120

116

201

118

326

311

309

121

220

218

PALM AV

123

210

208

145

320

JEFFERSON ST

C B A

205

141

316 316A

303

301

202

A

CALIFORNIA ST

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 1

128

137

135

310

308

215

209

203

131

127

125

119

115

111

1

931

211

207

206

929

927

BA

A

214

208

144

140

11

925

204

219

217

.

136

117

921

917

915

208

231

223

Land Use Diagram

Watsonville 2005 General Plan

Residential

Residential Low Density

Other

130

0 50 100 200 300

105

Equal to, or less than, 7.99 units per net acre

Residential Medium Density

8 to 13.99 units per net acre

Residential High Density

14 to 42 units per net acre

Commercial, Office, and Industrial

Central Commercial

General Commercial

Industrial

Open Space, Community Facilities,

Agriculture, and Coastal Zone

Circulation

Notes:

Greenbelt

Environmental Management

Public/Quasi-Public

Transportation, Communications,

& Utilities

Agriculture

Coastal Zone

Specific Plan Area

The proportion of land uses shown in the insets is

conceptual only, subject to the outcome of the

specific plan. In addition to the primary uses shown in

the insets, specific plan areas may contain secondary

uses described in the Land Use C

Boundaries and Symbols

!

!

!

!

!

!

City Limit

20 yr. Urban Limit Line

25 yr. Urban Limit Line

Westerly Urban Limit Line

Parcels

Sphere of Influence May 2000

1. The land use designations can be fully understood only through

reference to the General plan document. For further information,

please contact the Watsonville Community Development department,

250 Main St., Watsonville, CA 95077,

2. The Redevelopment Aera is shown in the Land Use Chapter (4)

of the General Plan.

* Amend the Watsonville 2005 General Plan to impose certain

restrictions on subsequent amendments as provided in the

Watsonville Urban Limit Line and Development Timing Initiative.

Feet

This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.

The City of Watsonville assumes no responsibility for any errors.

Prepared by Watsonville GIS Center 7/14/2008.


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO.__________ (CM)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WATSONVILLE APPROVING A MAJOR

VARIANCE (PP2009-286) TO THE PARKING

DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPERTY

LOCATED AT 813 FREEDOM BOULEVARD, (APN:

016-143-09) WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

WHEREAS, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of

Santa Cruz County, applicant and property owner, filed Application

No. (PP2009-286) on September 22, 2009, for a Major Variance to

the parking distance requirement to allow establishment of their

offices on a parcel located at 813 Freedom Boulevard (APN: 016-

143-09), Watsonville, California; and

WHEREAS, Part 6 of Chapter 12 of Title 14 of the

Watsonville Municipal Code sets for the standards for considering

applications for zoning variances; and

WHEREAS, the appropriate public noticing procedures have

been followed for the Major Variance, and a public hearing was

held according to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Watsonville

(Watsonville Municipal Code 14-10.900.; and

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Major Variance FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 1:23:43 PM

AJS ______ CJP ______ CDD _____

1


WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all evidence

received, both oral and documentary, and the matter was

submitted for decision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

Good cause appearing and upon the Findings, attached

hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A,” and subject to the

Major Variance Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”, the City Council of the City of

Watsonville does hereby approve the Major Variance to the

parking distance requirement, attached hereto and marked as

Exhibit “C,” for the property located at 813 Freedom Boulevard,

(APN: 016-143-09), Watsonville, California.

***************************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Major Variance FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 1:23:43 PM

2


CITY OF WATSONVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

Application No. PP2009-286

APN: 016-143-09

Applicant: CASA

Approval Date: February 23, 2010

MAJOR VARIANCE FINDINGS (Section 14-12.604)

1. By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property in

question, or by reason of exceptions topographic conditions or other

extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of the property in question,

the strict application of the provisions of that title would result in peculiar and

exceptional practical difficulties to, or in exceptional and undue hardships upon,

the applicant;

Supportive Evidence

The neighborhood was developed with the provision of parking at the rear of

each property accessed by an alley. None of the properties in this development,

including the adjacent church, have vehicular access to Freedom Boulevard.

In order to maintain the residential character of the house, as well as to prevent

traffic congestion on Freedom Boulevard, the applicants are requesting approval

of a Major Variance to allow off-site parking that is further than 150 feet from the

property, rather than modify the front of the property.

There are no available off-site parking spaces within 150-feet of the property,

however the applicants have found off-site parking with 5 spaces at Saint

Patrick’s church and 3 spaces at Brennan Square. These off-site parking spaces

are within walking distance to the property, but strict application of the 150-foot

distance requirement is not possible. CASA is a unique organization that is

consistent with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and

uses. This is a unique circumstance that allows consideration of off-site parking

that exceeds the distance requirement.

This project is being conditioned to require that the parking spaces on the

property be made available for CASA advocates who will visit the site, which will

prevent impacts to on-street parking in the neighborhood.

2. The circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other properties in the

same land use district;

Supportive Evidence

The property is located at the edge of a commercial zoning district. The adjacent

church property has a dedicated parking lot for patrons, and the adjacent

residential properties have sufficient parking on-site.

EXHIBIT “A”

Page 1 of 2


In order to provide the required number of off-street parking spaces for the

proposed office, to prevent on-street parking impacts in the vicinity, the

applicants have secured parking further than 150-feet from the property. Given

the location of the

property at the edge of a commercial zone, the circumstances related to this

Variance to the parking distance requirement would not apply to other properties

in this district. Any future commercial use of the property would be subject to a

new Major Variance application.

3. The granting of the Variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to

other properties in the vicinity, substantial impairment of natural resources or be

detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare;

Supportive Evidence

The allowance of off-site parking to be more than 150 feet from the property will

allow CASA staff to park off-site, leaving on-site parking spaces available for

scheduled advocate visits. Without the allowance of the Major Variance, onstreet

parking may be impacted. The off-site parking spaces at Saint Patrick’s

Church and Brennan Square will ensure that parking in the neighborhood is not

impacted by the office.

4. The Variance is not requested exclusively on the basis of economic hardship to

the applicant, nor was the situation requiring a Variance created by an act of the

applicant, without obtaining permits.

Supportive Evidence

The applicants have worked diligently to secure off-site parking for the office.

There is no available off-site parking closer than 150-feet to the site. The

applicants have secured 5 parking spaces at Saint Patrick’s Church and 3

parking spaces at the Brennan Square parking lot, which will provide for a total of

8 off-site spaces in addition to 4 on-site spaces.

The necessity for requesting this Major Variance is due to the location of the

property in an established, densely urban area of the City that does not have

surplus parking available. This Variance was not requested based on economic

hardship by the applicants.

EXHIBIT “A”

Page 2 of 2


CITY OF WATSONVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

Application No.: PP2009-286

APN: 016-143-09

Applicant: CASA

Hearing Date: February 23, 2010

MAJOR VARIANCE

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

General Conditions:

1. This approval shall be null and void if not acted upon within 24 months from the effective date of

the Major Variance. Time extensions may be granted provided the applicant requests same at

least thirty (30) days in advance of the expiration. This approval applies to plans titled "A Casa for

CASA, 813 Freedom Boulevard" received by the Community Development Department on

December 9, 2009. (CDD-P)

2. After approval is granted, modification to the project or to conditions imposed may be considered

in accordance with Section 14-10.609 of the City Zoning Ordinance. (CDD-P)

3. The project shall be in compliance with the conditions of approval, all local codes and ordinances,

appropriate development standards, and current City policies. Any deviation will be grounds for

review by the City and may possibly result in revocation of the Major Variance permit. (CDD-P, B)

4. The applicant shall make and note all revisions necessary to comply with all conditions of

approval. The applicant shall certify in writing below the list(s) of conditions that the building plans

comply with the conditions of approval. (CDD-P)

5. A copy of the final conditions of approval must be printed on the front sheet of plans submitted for

future permits. Plans without the conditions of approval printed directly on the front page

will not be accepted at the plan-check phase. (CDD-P)

Prior to or concurrent with the issuance of building permits, the following requirements must

be met:

6. This Major Variance Permit applies to CASA of Santa Cruz County. Any changes in the mode of

operation, tenancy, or property ownership shall require approval of a new Major Variance

application. (CDD-P)

7. All parking spaces shall be clearly designated as such by painting directly on the parking

surface. All guest parking spaces shall be striped per City Standard. (CDD-E)

8. Current exiting is non-compliant. The second floor shall be provided with two exits. (CDD-B,

WFD)

9. Building construction shall comply with 1-hour fire rated construction where needed. (CDD-B,

WFD)

10. A design professional will be required at time of construction drawings, to prepare plans for

proposed improvements per the Business and Professions Code. (CDD-B)

EXHIBIT “B”

Page 1 of 3


11. Comprehensive detailed construction plans are required at the time of submittal to be reviewed

for adequate content prior to intake, by the Building Official. (CDD-B)

12. Provide occupancy group and type of construction proposed per the California Building Code, to

clearly determine requirements. (CDD-B)

13. Provide structural calculations verifying compliance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform

Building Code Chapter 23. Prior to request for final inspection, written verification by the engineer

of record indicating compliance with the structural design shall be submitted to the City of

Watsonville Building Division. (CDD-B)

14. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California State Building Code (Title

24) Part 2 Chapter 11B Division I, II, and III for Disabled Access. Plans must show compliance

with all requirements. (CDD-B)

15. Comply with all applicable provisions of the California State Building Code (Title 24) Part 2

Chapter 11B Division I, II & III for Disabled Access. Plans must show compliance in sufficient

information and detail to determine compliance was noted for the following: (BUILDING)

A) Path of travel from Public Transportation (main entry to the public sidewalk).

B) Disabled parking requirements:

1. Van Accessible Parking (requires 8’-0” unloading area)

2. Number of spaces (1 for 1 st 25, 2 for the next 50 see table 11B-6).

3. Slopes at parking & unloading areas must not exceed 1:50

4. Proper disabled signage, lettering and stripping is required

C) Path of travel from existing grade to elevators to units (if required).

D) Main building entrances and required exits must be accessible.

E) Design professional must provide written verification of compliance for existing disabled

access features or facilities noted on plans.

16. A separate demolition permit will be required for removal/demolition of structures prior to a

building permit issuance. A “j” permit and /or clearance from the Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District is required at the time of demolition permit request. A site plan showing

the location of the structure(s) is required and a description of the building including the following

is required; Use of the facility, construction type, square footages of the buildings, number of

bathroom facilities etc. If the building to be demolished is clearly indicated on the new building or

site development plan, an additional site plan not need be provided separately. (CDD-B)

17. A site development permit shall be required for all grading and shoring work. Shoring plans,

calculations, etc., must be reviewed and approved by Building Division. (CDD-B)

18. Prior to excavation, adjoining landowners shall be given notice of the date, location, and extent of

excavation in conformity with Section 832 of the Civil Code and copies shall be provided to the

Building Official prior to issuance of the Building Permit. (CDD-B)

EXHIBIT “B”

Page 2 of 3


19. Proposed project requires that new and existing or required curb ramps, sidewalks or driveway

entries will comply with the federal regulations on ADA access; if the valuation of the site work is

over $119,958.65 site improvements associated to the site must comply with all disabled access

requirements, if the valuation is under $119,958.65 provide 20% of this amount into making public

improvements comply with the ADA if needed. (CDD-B)

20. No work for which a building permit is required shall be performed within the hours of 7:00 p.m. to

7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, nor prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, nor prior

to 12:00 noon or after 4:00 p.m. on Sunday. A sign shall be posted at a conspicuous location

near the main entry to the site, prominently displaying these hour restrictions. (CDD-B)

Ongoing Conditions:

21. Priority for on-site parking shall be given to advocates and visitors to the site. When necessary,

employees shall park in designated off-site parking spaces at Saint Patrick’s Church and Brennan

Square to make the on-site spaces available. (CDD-P) MITIGATION MEASURE

22. Parking lots at Mar Monte Clinic and Moreland Notre Dame School shall be utilized for after-hours

events consisting of more than 10 people. CASA shall coordinate with both locations to

determine availability of the parking lots. (CDD-P) MITIGATION MEASURE

23. Landscaping shall be maintained in good condition in perpetuity. Dead or diseased plants shall

be replaced. (CDD-P)

24. Training literature and invitations for events shall include the following information on parking:

a. No parking on Gonzales Avenue or High Street

b. No parking in front of residences on Brennan Street

c. Location of off-site parking for events

d. No parking in the vacant lot at 318 Brennan Street

e. No parking at the church at 801 Brennan Street

f. Parking in rear of building shall be accessed from Brennan Street.

g. Parking along Freedom Boulevard is allowed. (CDD-P)

Key to Department Responsibility

CDD-B - Community Development Department (Building)

CDD-P - Community Development Department (Planning)

CDD-E - Community Development Department (Engineering)

PW - Public Works and Utilities Department

WFD – Watsonville Fire Department

EXHIBIT “B”

Page 3 of 3


CITY OF WATSONVILLE

MAJOR VARIANCE

Application No. PP2009-286

APN: 016-143-09

Applicant: CASA of Santa Cruz

Approval Date: February 23, 2010

City of Watsonville

City Council

Major Variance

The Variance Permit (PP2009-286) to the parking distance requirement for the

proposed CASA offices at 813 Freedom Boulevard was reviewed by the City Council,

conditionally approved with Findings and Conditions, and all are attached hereto and

made a part of this Major Variance Permit.

APPROVED:_____________________________________ DATE: ______________

Marcela Tavantzis

Interim Community Development Director

EXHIBIT “C”

Page 1 of 1


City Council _________

ORDINANCE NO. Introduction (CM)

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE

APPROVING THE REZONING OF ASSESSOR’S

PARCEL NUMBER 016-143-09 FOR THE PROPERTY

LOCATED AT 813 FREEDOM BOULEVARD,

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, FROM R-1 (SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CN (NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMERCIAL) AND DIRECTING CHANGES TO BE

MADE ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE

WHEREAS, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of

Santa Cruz County, applicant and property owner, has applied to

rezone Assessor’s Parcel Number 016-143-09, presently zoned R-

1 (Single Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial)

for the purposes of establishing a non-profit office for CASA at 813

Freedom Boulevard, Watsonville, California; and

WHEREAS, proposed CASA offices in the existing single

family residence located at 813 Freedom Boulevard are not

permitted in the R-1 Zoning District; and

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2010 a duly noticed public

hearing was conducted before the Planning Commission of the

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Rezoning Ord FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:39:23 AM

AJS ______ CJP ______ CDD ______

1


City of Watsonville on Application No. (PP2009-286) for rezoning

from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood

Commercial) for the property located at 813 Freedom Boulevard,

Watsonville, California, after which the Planning Commission

adopted Resolution No. 14-10 (PC) recommending to the City

Council of the City of Watsonville approval of said Rezoning; and

WHEREAS, notice of time and place of hearing for approval

of rezoning from (R-1) Single Family Residential) to (CN)

Neighborhood Commercial was given at the time and in the

manner prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of

Watsonville (Watsonville Municipal Code 14-10.900.); and

WHEREAS, having made findings which are attached hereto

and marked as Exhibit “A,” by adoption of this ordinance the

criteria for approval set forth in Section 14-12.807 of the

Watsonville Municipal Code are satisfied; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all evidence

received, both oral and documentary, and the matter was

submitted for decision.

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Rezoning Ord FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:39:23 AM

2


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA,

DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: REZONING.

1. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville does

hereby approve rezoning of Assessor’s Parcel Number 016-143-

09 from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood

Commercial) which is consistent with the findings for rezoning,

attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A,” for the property

located at 813 Freedom Boulevard, Watsonville, California.

2. That the City Clerk of the City of Watsonville is hereby

authorized and directed to make the changes shown upon the

official “Zoning Map of the City of Watsonville” marked as Exhibit

“B,” a copy of which is attached hereto, and to designate the

effective date and number of the ordinance authorizing the

change.

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Rezoning Ord FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:39:23 AM

3


SECTION 2. DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

Section 14-16.1304 et seq. (CN) Neighborhood Commercial

of the Watsonville Municipal Code is hereby reaffirmed and shall

remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 3.

PUBLICATION.

This ordinance shall be published in the Watsonville

Register-Pajaronian in compliance with the provisions of the

Charter of the City of Watsonville.

SECTION 4.

EFFECTIVE DATE.

adoption.

This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final

*************************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\813 Freedom Rezoning Ord FINAL.docx

ri 2/18/2010 10:39:23 AM

4


CITY OF WATSONVILLE

CITY COUNCIL

Application No. PP2009-286

APN: 016-143-09

Applicant: CASA

Hearing Date: February 23, 2010

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FINDINGS (Section 14-12.708 and 14-12.802)

1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies embodied in the

General Plan.

Supportive Evidence

The General Plan contains specific policies relating to all aspects of City life,

including land use, public safety, and community character. The scope of the

project is to provide adequate space for CASA to carry out their mission of

providing a voice for abused and neglected children in the juvenile court process.

Goal 7.1 of the General Plan calls for the City to be committed to providing a safe

and protective environment for children. CASA provides a program to help children

navigate the foster care system through the help of volunteer advocates that spend

time with the children. The creation of a home-like environment for CASA and the

children that they serve follows the intent of Goal 7.1 of the General Plan.

Goal 4.B.1 of the General Plan calls for the evaluation of existing land use patterns

prior to approval of new development that may prove disruptive to local circulation.

The City has carefully evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendment and its

potential effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The property is located at the

edge of a commercial zone. The adjacent church currently has a General Plan

designation of Public/Quasi Public, however in the 2030 General Plan the

designation was changed to General Commercial. Due to the unique nature of

CASA, the use will be compatible with the neighborhood and provide a buffer

between existing commercial use and the residential neighborhood.

General Plan Policy 4-H calls for the assistance to programs designed to address

special needs populations including children. CASA is an organization dedicated to

helping children in the foster care and court systems. Their goal is to provide the

children in their program with a safe, loving home to heal from a life of abuse and

neglect so they can grow into healthy, contributing members of society.

2. That the proposed amendment is compatible to the extent possible with the actual

and general planned use of the adjacent properties.

EXHIBIT “A”

Page 1 of 2


Supportive Evidence

The property is located at the edge of an existing neighborhood, adjacent to a

church and across the street from Callaghan Park. The street melds into a

commercial district as Freedom Boulevard extends toward Main Street. The

adjacent church property has a General Plan designation of Public/Quasi Public in

the 2005 General Plan, and a General Commercial designation in the 2030 General

Plan. To the east of the property, residential lots are designated Residential-Low

Density.

On the adjacent portion of the neighborhood to the northeast of the project site,

properties have General Plan designations of General Commercial to

accommodate the commercial nature of the majority of the Freedom Boulevard

corridor. Further to the southwest on Freedom Boulevard, properties are also

designated General Commercial. The General Plan amendment of the property at

813 Freedom Boulevard will be compatible with the designation of adjacent

properties, and will not disrupt the existing neighborhood.

Given the location of the property, CASA’s use will serve as a buffer between the

commercial uses on one side and the residential areas on the other. This will

minimize the potential for conflicting adjacent land uses and enhance the desirable

characteristics of the residential areas.

Because of the unique residential nature of the proposed use and the location of

the property at the edge of a commercial zone, the General Plan amendment is

acceptable. Because of the distinctly residential character of the adjacent homes

on Freedom Boulevard, there is no potential to extend the commercial designation.

EXHIBIT “A”

Page 2 of 2


11

2

4

10 8

14

0

40

41

11

15

19

23

29 42

900

16

18

24

28

A

9TH ST

217A

803

231

229

14

25

MAIN ST

225

221

217

19

12

104 1

226

15

15

11

7

211A

2

4

8

8TH ST

102

6

208

212

207

216

8

111

4

41

ALTON WY

9

220

224

HYDE ST

800

45

49

53

57

21

107

2

22

108-118

26

24

21-31

7TH ST

1 3

9

3

44

15

1

34

30

26

16

WESTERN DR

40

32

28

22

39

35

27

23

19

15

23

331

24

20

EASTERN DR

19

15

9

2

A

325

11

24

16

12

707

18

GONZALES ST

24

20

326

322

751

749

14

771

32

732

10

320

781

740

720

921

919

905

WEST HIGH ST

757

7

318

801

855

A 819

813

762X

845

835

833

827

825

217

213

207

155

151

209

910

908

906

904

FREEDOM BL

850

212

147

15

3

17

14

10

854

208

101

846

115

111

105

133

21

338

18

318

314

322

108

144

22

225

310

114

140

136

132

126

306

107

4 5 6 8

9

2 1

119

327

118

100

108

104

321

317

315

311

111

Location of Proposed Zoning

Map Amendment from R-1 to CN

BRENNAN ST

PARK WY

123

119

115

113

226

215

211

122

124

118

116

14

330

112

207

129

126

PALM AV

328

124

120

116

210

208

201

145

118

326

JEFFERSON ST

309

121

220

218

123

320

C B A

205

141

316 316A

303

CALIFORNIA ST

SUDDEN ST

301

202

A

137

135

310

308

128

215

209

931

203

207

206

131

127

125

119

115

A BA

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 1

929

927

217

208

925

144

140

Zoning Map

921

Zoning

136

City of

Watsonville

Motto: “Opportunity Through Diversity; Unity Through Cooperation.”

Parcel

813 Freedom Blvd

Legend

R-1P: Planned Single Family Residential

R-1: Single Family Residential-Low Density

RM-2: Multiple Residential-Medium Density

RM-3: Multiple Residential-High Density

CC: Central Commercial

CCA: Central Commercial Core Area

CN: Neighborhood Commercial

CNS: Neighborhood Shopping Center

CO: Office

CT: Thoroughfare Commercial

CV: Visitor Commercial

IG: General Industrial

IP: Industrial Park

N: Institutional

PF: Public Facilities

EM-A1: Exclusive Agriculture

EM-OS: Environmental Mgnt. Open Space-Private Land

CZ-A: Coastal Zone-A

CZ-B: Coastal Zone-B

CZ-C: Coastal Zone-C

CZ-D: Landfill

CZ-E: Coastal Zone-E

µ

1 inch = 200 feet

50 25 0 50 100 150 200

Feet

Prepared by Watsonville GIS Center 8/13/2009.

This Document is a graphic representation using the best currently available

sources. The City of Watsonville assumes no responsibility for any errors.


City Council _________

City of Watsonville

City Clerk’s Office

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: February 18, 2010

TO:

FROM:

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

Beatriz Vázquez Flores, City Clerk

SUBJECT:

City Flag

MEETING: February 23, 2010 City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council, by motion, approve Rendering No. 1 to be

used as the design for the creation of a City flag and authorize the

City Manager to enter into an agreement with Paul De Worken

giving the City exclusive rights to the design selected.

DISCUSSION:

On November 11, 2009, former Mayor Rivas recommended to

Council to adopt a process to create a City flag. The City Council

directed staff to provide Council with different samples of flag

designs.

A survey of California cities indicated that most cities have a city

flag. There are certain events where city flags are displayed.

Since the City has never had an official flag, it is not represented

in such events.

2/18/2010 2:00:58 PM

O:\BEATRIZ\COUNCIL\City Flag Staff Report.doc

Page 1 of 2


Paul De Worken of Monterey Bay Murals, a local artist and

muralist, contacted City staff to volunteer his time and talent to

provide some flag renderings. The renderings are based on the

City’s logo. The hills and the bird of Rendering No. 1 more closely

resemble those of the City’s logo. Mr. De Worken has agreed to

enter into an agreement giving exclusive rights to the City of the

design selected free of charge.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council could select any other of the designs presented or not

adopt a City flag.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The cost of one flag would be approximately $260.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Flag renderings

2/18/2010 2:00:58 PM

O:\BEATRIZ\COUNCIL\City Flag Staff Report.doc

Page 2 of 2


ATTACHMENT NO. 1

Page 1 of 2


ATTACHMENT NO. 1

Page 2 of 2


Questions & Answers About the Local Taxpayer, Public

Safety and Transportation Protection Act for Use by

Public Agencies

WHAT IS THE LOCAL TAXPAYER, PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORATION PROTECTION ACT AND WHAT

DOES IT PROPOSE TO DO

The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act (AG Initiative #: 09-0063) is a constitutional

amendment that was filed with the California Attorney General in October of 2009. The measure, which proponents

are working to qualify for the November 2010 statewide ballot, would prevent the State from borrowing or

redirecting funds that are currently dedicated to cities, counties and special districts in California. The measure

would also prevent the state from borrowing or redirecting various gas tax revenues that currently fund state and

local transportation and mass transit programs, improvements and services. According to proponents, the measure

contains the following principal provisions:

Revokes the State’s ability to borrow local government property tax funds (currently authorized under Prop

1A, approved in 2004).

Prohibits the State from borrowing Prop. 42 funds (gas tax) which voters have dedicated to state and local

government transportation improvements, and mass transit programs, services and improvements.

Prohibits the State from taking or borrowing the Highway User Tax on gasoline (HUTA), which currently

funds city, county and state road, highway, transit and other transportation improvements and services.

Prevents the State from redirecting or diverting locally levied taxes, including parcel taxes, sales taxes,

utility user taxes, TOT’s and other locally imposed taxes that are currently passed by local governments

and/or their voters and dedicated to cities, counties and special districts.

Prohibits the State from taking, borrowing or redirecting funding for public transit, including existing taxes

on gas and “spillover” funds dedicated to the Public Transportation Account.

Adds additional constitutional protections to prevent the State from taking redevelopment funds or shifting

redevelopment funds to other state purposes.

The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of

the proposed measure:

PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM TAKING FUNDS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION OR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT PROJECTS AND SERVICES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Prohibits the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to

fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services.

Prohibits the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor

deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and

Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Significant constraints on state authority

over city, county, special district, and redevelopment agency funds. As a result, higher and more stable local

resources, potentially affecting billions of dollars in some years. Commensurate reductions in state resources,

resulting in major decreases in state spending and/or increases in state revenues.

WHO ARE THE OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

The Executive Directors of the League of California Cities, the California Alliance for Jobs, and the California Transit

Association are listed by the CA Attorney General’s office as official proponents of the ballot measure. According to

the website of the coalition supporting the measure (www.savelocalservices.com), other local government,

redevelopment, labor, business, public safety, transportation and public transit organizations are also supportive.


HOW MANY SIGNATURES NEED TO BE COLLECTED TO QUALIFY FOR THE NOVEMBER BALLOT

The Secretary of State’s office says that proponents must collect 694,354 valid signatures from registered California

voters to qualify for the ballot. The coalition supporting the measure claims they will collect 1.1 million signatures by

mid-April to ensure qualification.

ISN’T FUNDING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ALREADY PROTECTED FROM

STATE RAIDS

California voters have passed several measures to prevent the State from redirecting local government and

transportation funds. For example, in November 2004, 84% of California voters passed Proposition 1A, which put

restrictions on the State’s ability to shift or take local government revenues, including property taxes and sales

taxes. That provision allowed the State to borrow a portion of local government property taxes under certain

conditions. In November 2006, 77% of California voters passed a different Proposition 1A, which placed more

restrictions on the state when it borrows the state sales tax on gasoline for non-transportation purposes.

Despite these and other measures, the recently-enacted State budget does continue to shift funding dedicated to

local governments and transportation and transit programs and services. For instance, in this year’s budget, the

State:

Borrowed approximately $2 billion in property taxes from local governments.

Shifted $2.05 billion in redevelopment agency funding to schools.

Shifted $910 million in transit funding away from local transit agencies.

Voted to take more than $1 billion of the local government share of the Highway User Tax (HUTA) to repay

state bond debt (the measure did not ultimately pass in the Assembly).

Took action to eliminate the state sales tax on gasoline (Prop 42 funds) and HUTA and replace with a

gasoline “fee” that would have no constitutional protection from future shifts by the legislature (the Governor

ultimately vetoed this measure).

Threatened to borrow Prop 42 transportation funds to address the State’s deficit.

The Courts have ruled on separate occasions that the State’s previous raids of redevelopment funds and public

transit funding were illegal, yet the Legislature and Governor continue to propose similar raids of transit and

redevelopment revenues.

DOES THIS MEASURE INCREASE OR DECREASE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR FOR

TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT

According to proponents, the measure only protects existing revenues that are currently dedicated to local

governments and transportation and transit improvements and services. It does not dedicate any new revenues to

local governments or transportation/transit.

CAN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS GET INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN TO PASS THIS

MEASURE

Public employees and officials (those employed by government agencies) may get involved only on their personal

time, and not using any government (taxpayer funded) resources. You may campaign after work hours, on

weekends, or during lunch breaks, provided no government resources (meeting room, money, computers, etc.) are

used. Public employees and officials are advised to check whether their agency has adopted local rules governing

campaigning.


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO. __________ (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE DECLARING ITS SUPPORT

OF THE LOCAL TAXPAYER, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND

TRANSPORTATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2010

WHEREAS, California voters have repeatedly and

overwhelmingly passed separate ballot measures to stop State

raids of local government funds, and to dedicate the taxes on

gasoline to fund transportation improvement projects; and

WHEREAS, these local government funds are critical to

provide the police and fire, emergency response, parks, libraries,

and other vital local services that residents rely upon every day,

and gas tax funds are vital to maintain and improve local streets

and roads, to make road safety improvements, relieve traffic

congestion, and provide mass transit; and

WHEREAS, despite the fact that voters have repeatedly

passed measures to prevent the State from taking these revenues

dedicated to funding local government services and transportation

improvement projects, the State Legislature has seized and

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Taxpayer Act.docx

ri 2/18/2010 11:01:14 AM

AJS ______ CJP ______

1


orrowed billions of dollars in local government and transportation

funds in the past few years; and

WHEREAS, this year’s borrowing and raids of local

government, redevelopment and transit funds, as well as previous,

ongoing raids of local government and transportation funds, have

lead to severe consequences, such as layoffs of police, fire and

paramedic first responders, fire station closures, stalled economic

development, healthcare cutbacks, delays in road safety

improvements, public transit fare increases and cutbacks in public

transit services; and

WHEREAS, the State Legislature in Sacramento has

continued to ignore the will of the voters, and current law provides

no penalties when state elected officials take or borrow these

dedicated funds; and

WHEREAS, a coalition of local government, transportation

and transit advocates recently filed a constitutional amendment

with the California Attorney General, called the Local Taxpayer,

Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, for

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Taxpayer Act.docx

ri 2/18/2010 11:01:14 AM

2


potential placement on California’s November 2010 statewide

ballot; and

WHEREAS, approval of this ballot initiative would close

loopholes and change the Constitution to further prevent State

politicians in Sacramento from seizing, diverting, shifting,

borrowing, transferring, suspending or otherwise taking or

interfering with tax revenues dedicated to funding local

government services, including redevelopment, or dedicated to

transportation improvement projects and mass transit.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville hereby

formally endorses the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and

Transportation Protection Act of 2010, a proposed constitutional

amendment.

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Taxpayer Act.docx

ri 2/18/2010 11:01:14 AM

3


2. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville hereby

authorizes the listing of the City of Watsonville in support of the

Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act

of 2010 and directs the City Clerk to fax a copy of this resolution to

the campaign offices at 916.442.3510.

***************************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Taxpayer Act.docx

ri 2/18/2010 11:01:14 AM

4


City Council _______

City of Watsonville

Watsonville Parks & Community Services

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: February 16, 2010

TO:

FROM:

Carlos J. Palacios, City Manager

Ana Espinoza, Director Parks &

Community Services

Tamara Vides, Sr. Administrative Analyst

Clara Cawaling, Administrative Analyst

SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Filing of a Grant

Application in the amount of $5 million to

the State of California Department of

Parks and Recreation under Proposition

84.

AGENDA ITEM: February 23, 2010 City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt the Resolution

Approving the filing of a Grant Application in the amount of $5 million

for the Renovation of Ramsay Park with the State of California

Department of Parks and Recreation and authorize the City Manager

to sign all documents associated with this grant application.

Funding sought is through Safe Drinking Water Quality and Supply,

Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006

p:\citycouncil\staffreports\2010\prop 84 grant application.doc

Page 1 of 4


administered by the State of California Department of Parks and

Recreation under Proposition 84.

DISCUSION:

Background.

On November 7, 2006, California voters passed Proposition 84, Safe

Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and

Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006. With this funding the state has

created a statewide program providing $368 million dollar grant

program through the Sustainable Communities and Climate Change

Reduction Chapter outlined in Proposition 84.

These funds are being managed by the State of California Department

of Parks and Recreation and made available through competitive

grants for the creation of new parks and new recreation opportunities

in critically underserved communities across California.

In 2010, during the first round of funding, $184 million are available

with up to $5 million available in grant funding per project.

Grant Requirements and Eligibility.

This Statewide Park Program requires that eligible projects meet six

eligibility requirements:

Project is located in an area with Critical Lack of Park Space or

Significant poverty

Type of Project be eligible under state guidelines

Safe Public Use

Sustainable Techniques are incorporated in the design and

construction

Project Funding is available and complete by 2017

Fees and Hours of Operations remain accessible to the larger

community to enjoy recreation features.

Based on the eligibility criteria and community needs the Parks and

Community Services Department has chosen Ramsay Park as the

p:\citycouncil\staffreports\2010\prop 84 grant application.doc

Page 2 of 4


project location. The renovation of Ramsay Park is estimated to cost

$5 million.

The Parks and Community Services Department (PCS) conducted

extensive community outreach to engage community members in the

planning process for developing a revitalization and remodeling plan

for Ramsay Park.

The PCS department conducted five community meetings between

January and early February, 2010. Over 200 community members

provided input and their ideas about what features in the park should

be remodeled or incorporated in the park in order to better meet

community needs. Community input was an essential element of this

project. Through this process community members completed

individual assessment of the park conditions and participated in a

variety of hands on group activities to help build consensus regarding

the elements of the park that need renovation. According to the

individual assessment the areas of the park that are most visited are:

Playgrounds (60%), the soccer fields (52%), and the picnic areas

(47%). The top five areas that should be upgraded/renewed according

to workshop participants are: playgrounds (59%), public restrooms

(54%), Soccer fields (41%), picnic areas (39%), and the skate park

(31%). This process also identified new recreational features that are

important for the community such as a multigenerational facility to

participate in fitness and recreational activities and a swimming pool.

The Grant application is due March 1 st . Staff is currently developing in

detail the scope and description of the project based on input provided

by community members. At this time, the conceptual plan that will be

submitted in the application for funding request is consistent with the

top five priorities identified by the public. Soccer fields will be

upgraded by installing artificial turf and lights, playgrounds and picnic

areas will be upgraded, the skate park will be expanded and public

restrooms will be remodeled and expanded to meet the large volume

of park visitors. If the Grant application is successful, the City of

Watsonville Parks and Community Services Department will receive

p:\citycouncil\staffreports\2010\prop 84 grant application.doc

Page 3 of 4


funding to carry out the renovation project at this park. There is no

financial match required under this application.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

The City Council’s goals of Safe and Healthy Community, Community

Resources and City Image are met by this project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact to the City. If the City is successful in

securing this grant, 5 million dollars will be available for the renovation

of Ramsay Park. Proposition 84 Grant does not require a match.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose not to apply for these funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

cc: City Attorney

p:\citycouncil\staffreports\2010\prop 84 grant application.doc

Page 4 of 4


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO.

(CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE AUTHORIZING AND

DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE TO SUBMIT AN

APPLICATION FOR $5 MILLION FOR THE

RENOVATION OF RAMSAY PARK IN STATEWIDE

PARK PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS THROUGH THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS

AND RECREATION UNDER PROPOSITION 84; AND

IF AWARDED, TO EXECUTE A STANDARD

AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO;

AND ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS

WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation

has been delegated the responsibility by the Legislature of the

State of California for the administration of the Statewide Park

Program, setting up necessary procedures governing the

Application; and

WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State

Department of Parks and Recreation require the City of

Watsonville to certify by resolution the approval of the application

before submission of said application to the State; and

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Ramsay Park Grant App.docx

ri 2/18/2010 12:23:49 PM

AJS ______ CJP ______ PCS ______

1


WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville will enter into a contract

with the State of California to complete the grant scope project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville hereby

authorizes the submittal of a $5 million grant application for the

Renovation of Ramsay Park, on behalf of the City of Watsonville,

to the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

2. That the City Council hereby certifies that the City of

Watsonville has or will have available, prior to commencement of

any work on the project included in this application, the sufficient

funds to complete the project.

3. That the City Council hereby certifies that the City of

Watsonville has or will have sufficient funds to operate and

maintain the project.

4. That the City Council hereby certifies that the City of

Watsonville has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Ramsay Park Grant App.docx

ri 2/18/2010 12:23:49 PM

2


Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant

Administration Guide.

5. That the City Council hereby delegates the authority to

the City Manager, or designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign

and submit all documents, including, but not limited to

applications, agreements, amendments and payment requests,

which may be necessary for the completion of the grant scope.

6. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville agrees to

comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws,

ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

7. That the City Manager of the City of Watsonville is

authorized and directed, if said grant is awarded, to appropriate

the $5 million to the Grants Fund.

***********************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Ramsay Park Grant App.docx

ri 2/18/2010 12:23:49 PM

3


City Council _______

City of Watsonville

Finance Department

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: February 16, 2010

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Carlos J. Palacios, City Manager

Marc Pimentel, Administrative Services Director

Joel Staker, Network Administrator

ACCEPT A STATUS REPORT ABOUT THE

CENTRAL COAST BROADBAND CONSORTIUM

AND ITS PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS

PROJECT.

AGENDA ITEM: February 23, 2010

City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council accepts this update regarding the Central Coast

Broadband Consortium (CCBC) and a regional project to connect the

various regions disparate telecommunication systems by building an

open and high speed network.

DISCUSSION:

Born from collaborative forum’s held in 2005, the CCBC has emerged

as a critical resource to bringing a potentially $50 million

telecommunications project from theory into reality. The CCBC is

currently comprised of a collection of key volunteer staff from member

agencies, including the City of Watsonville.

Page 1 of 5

Writer’s name 2/16/2010 10:44:09 PM

P:\1Marc\Dept Projects\Fiber Project\Middle mile\SR_CCBC-status-update_2010-0223.docx


Its mission has been to plan for, build and connect the region's

disparate telecommunications networks and fulfill critical gaps, offering

high speed Internet connectivity to ensure equity, access and digital

literacy for all residents, businesses, government (including public

safety), education and other important civic and social services

agencies and institutions in the region.

The CCBC was in an extremely fortunate position to have already

developed a project concept that was able to be quickly turned it into a

real project to address immediate needs and take advantage of current

opportunities. As Council recalls, on April 9, 2009, a

telecommunication outage turned off all cell phones, internet and land

line phones for many businesses and residents in Santa Cruz and San

Benito counties for much of the day. This brought to light a critical

weakness that many of us were worried about, the lack of secondary

telecommunication infrastructure. Subsequently, the Federal Stimulus

funding provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided a $7+ billion pool for telecommunication

projects whose focus was to connect rural areas and provide critical

public safety, health and economic development support.

The $50 million project that was underway fit the critical infrastructure

needs and the ARRA criteria. It will create a 428 mile fiber optic

backbone linking unserved and underserved areas to better served

communities, and connecting the entire region to Tier 1 Internet

facilities in Silicon Valley. Using a loop architecture, any point on the

network would have two independent paths to any other point, and to

the Internet.

Project Funding Status.

In August 2009, the CCBC

submitted its $40 million grant

application to the National

Telecommunications and

ARRA application

California PUC

Local share

Total estimated cost

$ 40 million

5 million

5 million

$50 million

Page 2 of 5

Writer’s name 2/16/2010 10:44:09 PM

P:\1Marc\Dept Projects\Fiber Project\Middle mile\SR_CCBC-status-update_2010-0223.docx


Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology

Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the Rural Utility Service's (RUS)

Broadband Initiatives Program (under the ARRA funding). Most

applications have been rejected to date with only a few awards. As a

show of how strong this project was put together, it is still under

funding consideration for Round 1. A second round of funding is fast

approaching and the CCBC will be resubmitting its application as a fall

back under this second and likely final round.

Already, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

unanimously approved a $4,975,009 grant from the California

Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to the CCBC on November 20, 2009.

The grant pays for 10% of the project. CPUC's approval follows

endorsements by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and

congressman Sam Farr, who represents the three county region.

The remaining $5 million has already been

committed by consortium members as the

“local” project costs. It is possible that

another grant will be received from the

State that would provide between $500,000

to $1million and would reduce the local

match. This is a very attractive project to

the State as its aligns itself with the State’s

goals of telecommunication projects to

strengthen public safety, economic

development and connecting rural

community into the health and education

systems.

Current plans are for the system to be operated by a cooperative,

which will offer access on a wholesale basis to last-mile Internet

service providers and major institutional customers.

Page 3 of 5

Writer’s name 2/16/2010 10:44:09 PM

P:\1Marc\Dept Projects\Fiber Project\Middle mile\SR_CCBC-status-update_2010-0223.docx


Staff will continue to provide updates to the City Council as new

information is presented. It is currently a dynamic flow of information

as the CCBC continues to operate as a collection of regional

volunteers. Future plans to have administrative support from AMBAG

as well as formalizing the CCBC into a legal entity with ongoing

funding mechanisms will be critical to the overall success of this

project. Over 70 different agencies in our region (including public,

private, education, non-profit and other agencies) have expressed their

support and/or commitment to the CCBC’s goal.

The table below shows the CCBC’s current leadership team, known as

the coordinating council. It highlights the vast collection of agencies

deeply committed to the CCBC and this current project.

Page 4 of 5

Writer’s name 2/16/2010 10:44:09 PM

P:\1Marc\Dept Projects\Fiber Project\Middle mile\SR_CCBC-status-update_2010-0223.docx


STRATEGIC PLAN:

This is in perfect alignment with the City Council’s newly adopted goal

of supporting the CCBC’s broadband project to bring higher speed,

lower cost internet connectivity to Watsonville, thereby supporting the

already existing goals of economic development, public safety and

educational attainment.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None at this time. At the time project funding is approved and design

costs are finalized, a funding allocation matrix will be developed to

receive member contributions to equal the local match. Much of the

City’s match may be made up in staff support resources (technical and

administrative).

ALTERNATIVES:

None. This is just an update of the current project underway.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

cc: City Attorney

Page 5 of 5

Writer’s name 2/16/2010 10:44:09 PM

P:\1Marc\Dept Projects\Fiber Project\Middle mile\SR_CCBC-status-update_2010-0223.docx


City Council _________

RESOLUTION NO. __________ (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WATSONVILLE DECLARING ITS SUPPORT

AND JOINING WITH THE CALIFORNIA EMERGING

TECHNOLOGY FUND (CETF) IN LAUNCHING AND

PROMOTING GET CONNECTED! A PUBLIC

AWARENESS AND EDUCATION PROGRAM

DESIGNED TO REACH CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS

THAT HAVE NOT YET ADOPTED BROADBAND

TECHNOLOGY

WHEREAS, closing the digital divide is vital to the economic

prosperity and quality of life for residents in the City of Watsonville

and throughout California; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville finds and declares that

high-speed Internet access—referred to generically as

“broadband” and including both wireline and wireless

technologies—is essential 21 st Century infrastructure in a digital

world and global economy; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville recognizes that

California is home to a wellspring of innovation that has given rise

to the evolution of broadband and other information technologies,

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Get Connected!.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:09:44 AM

AJS ______ CJP ______ Finance ______

1


however Californians’ adoption and use of broadband technology

is only approximately equivalent to the national average; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville acknowledges that thirty

eight (38%) percent of all Californians, and forty (40%) percent of

low-income households are not connected to the Internet with

broadband, leaving more than 14 million Californians without highspeed

Internet access at home; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville is committed to helping

families and children be healthy, productive and self-sufficient and

realizes that the use of broadband can save both time and money

for residents while helping them bridge the economic divide; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville is committed to helping

students obtain the highest-quality education possible

incorporating digital literacy and understands that high-speed

Internet connectivity and the availability of computing devices both

at school and at home are critical teaching and learning tools for

academic achievement; and

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Get Connected!.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:09:44 AM

2


WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville is committed to reducing

its carbon footprint and recognizes that broadband is a strategic

“green” technology that decreases greenhouse gas emissions and

dependence on foreign oil by enabling e-government and the

provision of more services online; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville is committed to digital

inclusion and increasing citizen participation in the public process

through expanded engagement using broadband; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville recognizes that is has the

opportunity to impact broadband deployment and adoption in its

several local government roles and responsibilities, including as a

policy leader, planning body, land use approval agency,

purchaser-consumer of communications equipment and

information technology, and a service provider; and

WHEREAS, the City of Watsonville welcomes the opportunity

to partner with the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF)

along with the Governor, Legislature, other local governments,

civic leaders, community organizations, employers, labor

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Get Connected!.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:09:44 AM

3


epresentatives, educators, and policymakers to encourage

adoption of broadband technology.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AS

FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville hereby

joins with the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) in

launching and promoting Get Connected!—a public awareness

program to close the Digital Divide—and declares 2009 and 2010

as target years for all residents, businesses and community

organizations to Get Connected!

2. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville requests

all of their departments and agencies to review scopes of

responsibilities, work plans, and services to identify and report

back to the City Council within six (6) months on the strategic

actions that will remove barriers to and promote the deployment

and adoption of broadband among residents, customers, and

recipients of public services.

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Get Connected!.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:09:44 AM

4


3. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville directs

that appropriate policies promoting and supporting the deployment

and adoption of broadband be promulgated and incorporated into

the General Plan and other appropriate land use and economic

development plans.

4. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville directs

the City Manager and other appropriate departments to determine

how to optimize the use of broadband technology to inform and

engage residents to increase citizen participation in the public

processes of governance and expand Digital Inclusion.

5. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville will seek

to cooperate and share the results of Get Connected! with

neighboring jurisdictions and other public agencies and shall post

this resolution on the City website and send a copy to the

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) for

appropriate distribution to other local governments.

6. That the City Council of the City of Watsonville

authorizes the use of their names as champions of Get

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Get Connected!.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:09:44 AM

5


Connected! on the websites of the California Emerging

Technology Fund (www.CETFund.org and

www.GetConnectedToday.com) and in printed materials pertaining

to Get Connected!

*********************************************

Reso No. (CM)

Q:\COUNCIL\2010\022310\Get Connected!.docx

ri 2/18/2010 9:09:44 AM

6

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines