Board debates renaming Watsonville low‑barrier navigation center; vote later challenged on legal grounds

Monterey County supervisors on Oct. 8 engaged in a lengthy public debate over whether to rename a low‑barrier navigation center under construction in Watsonville. The project, developed with Santa Cruz County, a church site and community partners, had been identified in grant application materials by an acronym the county refers to in files as “RDF.”

Supervisor Alejo introduced a referral that sought a name change prior to the site’s opening, proposing alternatives including Casitas de Esperanza (Spanish) and Hope Village (an English name with the acronym “HOPE” suggested as “Housing, Opportunity, Programs and Employment”). Alejo said a different name would be easier to pronounce, convey mission and help build community support and fundraising.

Support and opposition: Several elected officials from Watsonville and Santa Cruz—Mayor Maria Orozco, Santa Cruz CEO Carlos Palacios and Watsonville council members—told Alejo they supported a name change. Several members of the public and project partners argued against removing the name that outreach workers said encampment residents chose. Pastor Dan Hoffman, whose church is hosting the project site and whose congregation has served people on the levee for years, said the name came from residents and that changing it would strip those residents of a rare source of ownership.

Operational details: County staff described the project in presentations as a “low barrier navigation center” sited at a Watsonville church on First Street with 32 noncongregate sleeping units, facilities for up to roughly 34 individuals, pet area, showers and on‑site services including intensive care management, housing navigation and medical linkages. The Community Action Board (CAB) was named the site administrator through the coordinated funding and procurement process. The county also received nearly $8 million in Encampment Resolution/ERAF funding to build the center.

Board motions, votes and legal uncertainty: Supervisor Alejo moved to rename the site using a set of recommended names (priority order provided in the motion). The motion was seconded and a voice vote was recorded in which the chair announced the motion carried. Later in the same meeting county counsel reported that under state law (citing Government Code §25005) an affirmative vote of the majority of the board’s entire membership may be required for certain actions. Counsel advised that a subsequent review showed the earlier voice vote taken when fewer than all board members were present would not be a valid and binding action of the board under that interpretation. Counsel advised the motion was therefore not a valid act of the board.

To avoid administrative delay if Santa Cruz County later concurs with a change, the board later considered and approved (by a separate motion and majority of members present) a contingency administrative authorization: County staff were authorized to make necessary contract and document changes to implement an approved name change if and only if Santa Cruz County concurs with one of the recommended names. That administrative authorization was recorded in the meeting minutes and staff said several contracts and agreements would require amendment and that signage and documents could require replacement.

Public comment: Residents and stakeholders addressed the board. Speakers who opposed renaming said the name was chosen by the people it will serve and represents dignity and ownership. Other speakers urged selection of an English or bilingual name that would be easier to pronounce in media and fundraising (“Hope Village” or “Casitas de Esperanza”).

What happens next: County staff and legal counsel will provide a memo clarifying whether the initial board action (the recorded vote to rename) is legally valid and, if not, will return the item for formal consideration by the full board. Staff said the project remains on track to open soon and that a transition of project ownership to Santa Cruz County is expected to begin negotiations in March (roughly six months after the meeting) as part of the MOU execution already in place.