HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/13/2021 Item 2, Rowley
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Sandra Rowley <
To:Harmon, Heidi; Christianson, Carlyn; Pease, Andy; Stewart, Erica A; Marx, Jan
Cc:Johnson, Derek; Smith, Jeff; Codron, Michael; CityClerk
Subject:Item #2, Proposed Amendments to the Muni Code
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
Throughout your deliberations please keep in mind that the City's responsibilities do not
include social work/social services; that is a county responsibility. Whatever funds the City
spends on these services is money that is no longer available for our city's essential
services.
1. Shopping carts. How big a problem is this; is it sufficiently severe to warrant a lot of
regulation and/or expenditure? How many (number and percentage) shopping carts are
removed from the premises of businesses? Specifically, what is the current impact on the
city - where are carts left, are there one or two at various locations or several? The staff
report states that the City has removed hundreds of shopping carts from public spaces --
over what period of time?
Possession of a shopping cart off-premises is theft and should be treated as such. Ask the
shopping centers to install signage so stating. Ask businesses via the center's management
to secure their shopping carts, and let each businesses figure out the best way for them to
do that.
2. Prohibition of enclosable structures (e.g., tents) in parks. In the ordinance recommend
specifically calling out "natural reserves" in lieu of the term "open space." Otherwise the
explanation of the rationale for this ordinance and the amendment proposed look very
reasonable.
Please be aware: The Safe Parking Program at Railroad Square Park was established
without the knowledge of or input from residents of the area. It would be nice if Council
asked staff for a point of contact for these residents in case any problems should arise.
3. Playgrounds. As written this appears far too limiting. Families go to playgrounds. The
first experience that a child has going down a children's slide is often on the lap of his
1
mother or an older sibling. This is true for other play equipment as well. It's to get a young
child comfortable with the equipment and to show how to use it safely.
Setting age limits on various pieces of equipment does not take into account developmental
differences in children. The use of a weight-based standard would seem more reasonable
than an age-based standard.
The problem seems to be that (homeless) adults who are using drugs/alcohol or have
mental problems are using these parks and congregating around the play
equipment. There must be another way of stating that "this is not a play area for adults"
that doesn't appear to exclude, as an example, parents + siblings + grandparents +
babysitter. And the real problem will be enforcement -- because without a means to
enforce the "not an adult play area," what's the point.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
SLO resident
P.S. I would not recommend that any unit be formed, e.g., an EMT and social worker,
without an accompanying police officer unless the individual being assisted is well-
known. Granted we have a limited number of officers from which to draw; however,
incidents such as the one below have occurred before (remember the retail clerk who was
hit in the face?) and probably will again.
===============================================================================
210411057 04/11/21 Received:14:42 Dispatched:14:47 Arrived:14:55 Cleared:15:11
===============================================================================
Type: Assault Location:PN1
As Observed:
Assault, Simple
Addr: 956 FOOTHILL; RITE AID; GRID J-06, San Lu Clearance Code:Report Approved/
Responsible Officer: Magana, M
Units: 4238 ,4257 ,S4
Des: (MDC) Completed call incid#=210411057 call=69l
CALL COMMENTS: FEMALE UNK TO RP HIT RP IN THE FACE TWICE
2