Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Navigation Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces zoning amendment to allow low‑barrier navigation centers under state law despite local concerns
Summary
Placerville council voted 3'2 to introduce ZOA26-04 to define and permit low‑barrier navigation centers in specified zones to comply with AB 101 and housing‑element commitments; public commenters praised potential help for people experiencing homelessness while others warned of limits on local control.
Placerville's City Council introduced a zoning amendment on June 23 that would add objective standards and a definition for low‑barrier navigation centers and allow the use by right in several commercial and mixed‑use zones.
The measure, ZOA26‑04, was presented by planner Carol Kendrick as a step to implement Program B4 of the city's certified housing element and to comply with AB 101 and California Government Code sections 65660—6568. Kendrick said the ordinance creates a defined use, requires a clinical service plan and participation in the county's coordinated entry system, sets ministerial timelines (30/60 days for completeness/action), and limits zones where centers may locate.
Supporters at the public hearing said the change could provide services as the county's navigation center winds down. Ruth Michaelelsson told the council that the measure "gives the opportunity of the possibility of some assistance in appropriately located locations" as gaps open in services. David Zalinsky, who has experience working with the existing navigation center, said rules and case management "have been a tremendous ally" for people who otherwise would remain unhoused.
Others urged caution. Kathy Lisman said the ordinance is effectively mandated by the state and asked who would monitor centers and how many could be sited, adding: "The way it came about from the state dictating how we have to do it is not right." Kendrick and staff emphasized the ordinance sets objective standards and limited zones; council members corrected a clerical adoption date to schedule the second reading for Aug. 11.
On the motion to introduce and waive first reading, the council voted with three in favor and two opposed. Council member Carter and Vice Mayor No voted no; Council members Clarici, Yarborough and Mayor Nicole Gotberg voted yes. The ordinance will return to council for a second reading and potential adoption on Aug. 11.
The planning record notes a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation (PC‑2026‑06). The staff report cited the housing element timeline and a December 2025 HCD inquiry as reasons the amendment was necessary to maintain state compliance and eligibility for certain funding.
If adopted, the ordinance would allow navigation centers that meet the stated service, operational and siting standards; it does not itself approve any specific project. It also commits the city to ministerial processing timelines for complete applications.
Next steps: staff will return the ordinance for a second reading on Aug. 11, and any proposed navigation‑center project would need to demonstrate compliance with the ordinance's objective standards and county coordination requirements.
