Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBatch 6From:Dietrick, Christine To:Fox, Sheryl Subject:FW: Example Conditions of Approval Date:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:21:00 AM Attachments:Master Conditions - Bordoni Ranch.pdf Can you please save this to our templates file – subdivision conditions of approval (Durkee) Thx. From: Michael Durkee <mdurkee21@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:04 AM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; victoria@walnut-creek.org; avictoria@agourahillscity.org; public.works@mountainview.gov; tmangrich@lodi.gov; angie.garcia@cityofconcord.org; kasp@glendaleca.gov; imacmillan@burbankca.gov; Spotwood1@yahoo.com; Reaves, Mona <mreaves@glendaleca.gov>; Blaffo08@yahoo.com; pat@ksrinc.net; wervin@cityoforoville.org; admin@harperburns.com; mosierc@lacoassociates.com; taichauph@yahoo.com; DPatterson@atascadero.org; smckimmie@losaltosca.gov; guillenle@co.monterey.ca.us; rmiyahira@cityofhawthorne.org; laguayo@goldfarblipman.com; Nguyen, Vinhloc <vinhloc.nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Michael Durkee <mdurkee21@gmail.com> Subject: Example Conditions of Approval Dear November 13th Zoom Class Attendees, I hope you are all doing well! Thank you again for attending our November 13, 2020 Map Act Class by Zoom - please keep coming back - I promise you it will make more sense the more you are exposed to it! Many have asked for the sample Conditions of Approval that we put together some time ago in Vallejo with Jill Mercurio - I have attached them for your reference. You will see that this was a draft-in- progess (redlined/marked to show changes). Again, we are missing certain attendees email addresses because they were not provided through the signup form. In such a case, we trust that those of you who signed up for others will pass these example Conditions along to them. Thanks, and happy navigating! Best wishes, Mike (510) 918-5873 mdurkee21@gmail.com From:Dietrick, Christine To:Kersten, Markie Subject:Print Copy of HE? Date:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 3:49:46 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png I was getting ready to print out a copy of the housing element for tonight, as it’s just easier for me if I have a hard copy versus navigating zoom screens, and I figured I’d save a tree if you have a copy already printed. Thx. Christine Dietrick City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From:Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill To:Kersten, Markie Cc:Ellen Houser Subject:RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Date:Monday, November 23, 2020 3:45:11 PM Hi Markie, I am getting pestered by my client so I wanted to check in again with you on the well and blanket easement issue. Also, I understand that the developer (David Sansone) submitted a draft form of CC&R’s to Steve LaChaine at the City for review and I don’t know where those ended up in the review process. They were prepared for a standard subdivision (no common areas, all reciprocal easements managed by an overall manager). We had some questions on what may be acceptable with the City as far as leaving the door open for individual buildings within the development to be developed as condominiums. Specifically, because the project is already approved as an airspace condo project, we want to preserve the possibility of condo development on one or more of the subdivided parcels. At this stage, we don’t know what the economics will be when parcels are ultimately built out and don’t want to foreclose that possibility by proceeding with standard subdivision CC&R’s. Would you have time to discuss what options we may have with regard to the CC&R’s. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:01 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, I wanted to give you an update. I’ve shared my initial thoughts on this issue with our engineers, and I’m waiting on a response and further information from them. I should hear back from them early next week. Apologies for the delay. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:12 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, No problem. I just wanted to keep it on your radar (ok, really I just wanted to keep it on my radar). I’ll keep an eye out for your email next week. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:07 AM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, Thanks for following up. My apologies for the delay. It’s been a very busy week with large projects here at the City and I’m in a substantive training all day today. I will turn to this issue next week and circle back. I appreciate your patience. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:04 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, Just following up. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 4:30 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kgf@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, Thanks for reaching out. I can help you with this issue. I’ll need some time to connect with City staff, and review applicable Code sections, but I should be able to circle back with you early-mid next week, if that works for you. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kgf@amblaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 10:17 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, I got your name from Steve LaChaine as someone who might be able to help me move this along (if you’re not the right person, I apologize, but would very much appreciate if you could point me in the right direction). I am working with David Sansone of the 301 Prado Group LLC to start satisfying the various conditions of approval for his project. There are two issues in particular that he has asked for my help on. We have been in contact with Hal Hannula, but I understand that sign off from your office may be what is needed to address the two issues below. For your reference, I have attached the resolutions and conditions of approval that I am trying to address. Conditions 40 and 41 that require abandonment of a well that was on the property in 2009. Since that time, the property was subdivided and the well is now on a parcel owned by a third party. As such, 301 Prado Group does not have any control over these wells and needs these conditions removed. Second, is revising the existing City easement for bike path and sewer. In 2009, the City placed an easement over a large portion of the site for sewer and bike path purposes. Because the bike path project had not yet been designed, the easement was drafted as a blanket over several acres. Now that the bike path and sewer have been designed, the easement needs to be revised to cover those portions of the planned project and not the entire area. The reason why this is pressing is because the Army Corps of Engineers is prepared to accept an open space easement over a portion of the Project, but the open space portion falls within the blanket area of the City’s easement (once revised to the actual location of the bike path and sewer, I understand that it will not). The Army Corps will not accept the open space with the City’s easement covering that portion, so we need to coordinate to have the City abandon the area of its easement that is not occupied by the planned bike path and sewer project. As I mentioned, I believe Mr. Sansone was told that these issues would have to be taken up with the City Attorney and I would like to see what I can do to move these items along. I am available by phone or email, although email is the best way to contact me as I am still working remotely the majority of the time. And again, if you’re not the right person to be asking, I apologize. Thanks, Karen Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill, Esq. Andre, Morris & Buttery, A Professional Law Corporation 1102 Laurel Lane P.O. Box 730 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730 ( Voice (805) 543-4171 7 Fax (805) 543-0752 Also located at 2739 Santa Maria Way, Third Floor Santa Maria, CA 93455 www.amblaw.com Notice: The information contained in this transmission is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805) 543-4171 and delete the transmission from your system. Thank you. From:Jorgensen, Markie To:Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill Cc:Ellen Houser Subject:RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Date:Monday, November 23, 2020 4:07:00 PM Hi Karen, I have a call scheduled with Steve LaChaine and Hal Hannula tomorrow morning. I’ll follow up with you afterward. Thanks, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 3:45 PM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, I am getting pestered by my client so I wanted to check in again with you on the well and blanket easement issue. Also, I understand that the developer (David Sansone) submitted a draft form of CC&R’s to Steve LaChaine at the City for review and I don’t know where those ended up in the review process. They were prepared for a standard subdivision (no common areas, all reciprocal easements managed by an overall manager). We had some questions on what may be acceptable with the City as far as leaving the door open for individual buildings within the development to be developed as condominiums. Specifically, because the project is already approved as an airspace condo project, we want to preserve the possibility of condo development on one or more of the subdivided parcels. At this stage, we don’t know what the economics will be when parcels are ultimately built out and don’t want to foreclose that possibility by proceeding with standard subdivision CC&R’s. Would you have time to discuss what options we may have with regard to the CC&R’s. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:01 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, I wanted to give you an update. I’ve shared my initial thoughts on this issue with our engineers, and I’m waiting on a response and further information from them. I should hear back from them early next week. Apologies for the delay. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:12 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, No problem. I just wanted to keep it on your radar (ok, really I just wanted to keep it on my radar). I’ll keep an eye out for your email next week. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:07 AM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, Thanks for following up. My apologies for the delay. It’s been a very busy week with large projects here at the City and I’m in a substantive training all day today. I will turn to this issue next week and circle back. I appreciate your patience. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:04 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, Just following up. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 4:30 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kgf@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, Thanks for reaching out. I can help you with this issue. I’ll need some time to connect with City staff, and review applicable Code sections, but I should be able to circle back with you early-mid next week, if that works for you. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kgf@amblaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 10:17 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, I got your name from Steve LaChaine as someone who might be able to help me move this along (if you’re not the right person, I apologize, but would very much appreciate if you could point me in the right direction). I am working with David Sansone of the 301 Prado Group LLC to start satisfying the various conditions of approval for his project. There are two issues in particular that he has asked for my help on. We have been in contact with Hal Hannula, but I understand that sign off from your office may be what is needed to address the two issues below. For your reference, I have attached the resolutions and conditions of approval that I am trying to address. Conditions 40 and 41 that require abandonment of a well that was on the property in 2009. Since that time, the property was subdivided and the well is now on a parcel owned by a third party. As such, 301 Prado Group does not have any control over these wells and needs these conditions removed. Second, is revising the existing City easement for bike path and sewer. In 2009, the City placed an easement over a large portion of the site for sewer and bike path purposes. Because the bike path project had not yet been designed, the easement was drafted as a blanket over several acres. Now that the bike path and sewer have been designed, the easement needs to be revised to cover those portions of the planned project and not the entire area. The reason why this is pressing is because the Army Corps of Engineers is prepared to accept an open space easement over a portion of the Project, but the open space portion falls within the blanket area of the City’s easement (once revised to the actual location of the bike path and sewer, I understand that it will not). The Army Corps will not accept the open space with the City’s easement covering that portion, so we need to coordinate to have the City abandon the area of its easement that is not occupied by the planned bike path and sewer project. As I mentioned, I believe Mr. Sansone was told that these issues would have to be taken up with the City Attorney and I would like to see what I can do to move these items along. I am available by phone or email, although email is the best way to contact me as I am still working remotely the majority of the time. And again, if you’re not the right person to be asking, I apologize. Thanks, Karen Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill, Esq. Andre, Morris & Buttery, A Professional Law Corporation 1102 Laurel Lane P.O. Box 730 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730 ( Voice (805) 543-4171 7 Fax (805) 543-0752 Also located at 2739 Santa Maria Way, Third Floor Santa Maria, CA 93455 www.amblaw.com Notice: The information contained in this transmission is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805) 543-4171 and delete the transmission from your system. Thank you. From:Jorgensen, Markie To:Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill Cc:Ellen Houser; La Chaine, Steve; Hannula, Hal; Bell, Kyle Subject:RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Date:Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:25:29 PM Attachments:Design Exception form.pdf Karen, Thank you for your patience. I’ve spoken with our planning and engineering staff and provide responses to your questions below. Amending Conditions of Approval: Section 16.10.160 of the SLMC appears to allow for an amendment to COAs 40 and 41 with Director approval. Section 16.10.160 reads in relevant part: “Minor corrections or amendments to approved tentative maps or conditions of approval may be granted by the director; provided, that all of the following are true: 1. No lots, units or building sites are added or deleted; and 2. The proposed changes are consistent with the intent and spirit of the original tentative map approval; and 3. The proposed changes are consistent with the zoning regulations and the building code, the general plan and the Subdivision Map Act.” Please find attached a form that can be used to request exceptions to conditions of approval. Amending Bike and Sewer Path Easements: While our Code contemplates amendments to easements, it only covers minor amendments that do not affect interest in real property. Based on my understanding of the applicant’s request, the proposed amendment affects the City’s interest in real property, and therefore, the procedure set forth in the Code does not apply. Rather, Government Code Section 65402, arguably applies and requires Planning Commission review: “If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned. . . if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body.” This process has been followed for other projects proposing abandonment of existing easements and acquisition of new easements. While our Code allows Director approval of conditions of approval, planning staff recommends bringing a request for a modification to the tentative map to Planning Commission, which would encompass a request to modify the conditions of approval and a general plan conformity determination for the modification to the easement. You or your client can reach out to Kyle Bell, copied here, for more information about how to proceed down this path. Additionally, if you identify an alternate path forward, the City is happy to review and consider your proposal. Finally, Hal Hannula pointed out that the tentative map shows a biological open space easement over the property and was curious whether this fact has already been communicated to the Army Corp of Engineers. Hal, also copied here, is happy to discuss this with you or the Army Corp further as this fact may ease the Army Corp’s hesitation. CC&Rs: I’m not sure how my input on the CC&Rs is valuable or necessary at this point. The original subdivision was approved for a commercial condo subdivision within each building. The tentative map shows 1’ grids. As such, the map’s approvals contemplate what I’m understanding is your proposed plan. From my perspective, your draft is consistent with Condition of Approval #3 (Reso 10124) and your entitlements, and thus, I do not have any concerns at this time. If I’m misunderstanding your question, please let me know so that we can discuss further. Steve provided you with some redlines yesterday, and he can assist your team with any further questions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Markie From: Jorgensen, Markie Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 4:08 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, I have a call scheduled with Steve LaChaine and Hal Hannula tomorrow morning. I’ll follow up with you afterward. Thanks, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 3:45 PM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, I am getting pestered by my client so I wanted to check in again with you on the well and blanket easement issue. Also, I understand that the developer (David Sansone) submitted a draft form of CC&R’s to Steve LaChaine at the City for review and I don’t know where those ended up in the review process. They were prepared for a standard subdivision (no common areas, all reciprocal easements managed by an overall manager). We had some questions on what may be acceptable with the City as far as leaving the door open for individual buildings within the development to be developed as condominiums. Specifically, because the project is already approved as an airspace condo project, we want to preserve the possibility of condo development on one or more of the subdivided parcels. At this stage, we don’t know what the economics will be when parcels are ultimately built out and don’t want to foreclose that possibility by proceeding with standard subdivision CC&R’s. Would you have time to discuss what options we may have with regard to the CC&R’s. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:01 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, I wanted to give you an update. I’ve shared my initial thoughts on this issue with our engineers, and I’m waiting on a response and further information from them. I should hear back from them early next week. Apologies for the delay. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:12 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, No problem. I just wanted to keep it on your radar (ok, really I just wanted to keep it on my radar). I’ll keep an eye out for your email next week. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:07 AM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, Thanks for following up. My apologies for the delay. It’s been a very busy week with large projects here at the City and I’m in a substantive training all day today. I will turn to this issue next week and circle back. I appreciate your patience. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kfothergill@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:04 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, Just following up. Thanks, Karen From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 4:30 PM To: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kgf@amblaw.com> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: RE: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Karen, Thanks for reaching out. I can help you with this issue. I’ll need some time to connect with City staff, and review applicable Code sections, but I should be able to circle back with you early-mid next week, if that works for you. Best, Markie From: Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill <kgf@amblaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 10:17 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Ellen Houser <ehouser@amblaw.com> Subject: Prado Business Park Tract 3011 Hi Markie, I got your name from Steve LaChaine as someone who might be able to help me move this along (if you’re not the right person, I apologize, but would very much appreciate if you could point me in the right direction). I am working with David Sansone of the 301 Prado Group LLC to start satisfying the various conditions of approval for his project. There are two issues in particular that he has asked for my help on. We have been in contact with Hal Hannula, but I understand that sign off from your office may be what is needed to address the two issues below. For your reference, I have attached the resolutions and conditions of approval that I am trying to address. Conditions 40 and 41 that require abandonment of a well that was on the property in 2009. Since that time, the property was subdivided and the well is now on a parcel owned by a third party. As such, 301 Prado Group does not have any control over these wells and needs these conditions removed. Second, is revising the existing City easement for bike path and sewer. In 2009, the City placed an easement over a large portion of the site for sewer and bike path purposes. Because the bike path project had not yet been designed, the easement was drafted as a blanket over several acres. Now that the bike path and sewer have been designed, the easement needs to be revised to cover those portions of the planned project and not the entire area. The reason why this is pressing is because the Army Corps of Engineers is prepared to accept an open space easement over a portion of the Project, but the open space portion falls within the blanket area of the City’s easement (once revised to the actual location of the bike path and sewer, I understand that it will not). The Army Corps will not accept the open space with the City’s easement covering that portion, so we need to coordinate to have the City abandon the area of its easement that is not occupied by the planned bike path and sewer project. As I mentioned, I believe Mr. Sansone was told that these issues would have to be taken up with the City Attorney and I would like to see what I can do to move these items along. I am available by phone or email, although email is the best way to contact me as I am still working remotely the majority of the time. And again, if you’re not the right person to be asking, I apologize. Thanks, Karen Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill, Esq. Andre, Morris & Buttery, A Professional Law Corporation 1102 Laurel Lane P.O. Box 730 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730 ( Voice (805) 543-4171 7 Fax (805) 543-0752 Also located at 2739 Santa Maria Way, Third Floor Santa Maria, CA 93455 www.amblaw.com Notice: The information contained in this transmission is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805) 543-4171 and delete the transmission from your system. Thank you. From:Horn, Matt To:Cruce, Greg Subject:FW: Denial of free speech Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 6:19:48 PM FYI Matt Horn Director of Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mhorn@slocity.org T 805.781.7191 C 805.431.5474 From: Will Powers <drwill.powers7@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 6:09 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: Denial of free speech Ms. Dietrick: I am asking, once again, that you investigate the city's continuing denial of my right to free speech at legally-defined public meetings. For months now, I have attempted to "join the webinar" for the Tree Committee meetings; for months, now, it just somehow doesn't work, and I believe this is intentional. Through yeoman effort on my part tonight, I was able to "attend" via telephone, but I was able to join only late and phone-"attendance" is lesser than video attendance. Please investigate Ms. Purrington's continuing lack of effort to allow me to attend via video. For longer than anyone currently on the committee, I have attended these meetings in person and I resent not being able to "attend" them now. Please investigate; I have a right to free speech and it is being denied. Will Powers, Ph.D c: Mayor Harmon Derek Johnson Council members Matt Horn (Public "Works for the Developers" Director) T Purrington From:Dietrick, Christine To:Will Powers; Harmon, Heidi; E-mail Council Website; Johnson, Derek; Horn, Matt; Purrington, Teresa Subject:RE: Denial of free speech Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:03:00 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Will, Teresa and I will follow up. I certainly appreciate, and often experience, the technology frustration – it doesn’t love me and I don’t love it. All of us, from our remote school students, to governments, to private sector, are all doing our best to muddle through until we can be together in person again. That said, Teresa Purrington and our IT staff are managing multiple platforms to accommodate access and the technology needs of an extremely broad spectrum of constituents, vendors, customers and partner agencies. The unfortunate reality it that all platforms don’t work well for all people and we’ve tried to balance in choosing those that offer the greatest access and flexibility, acknowledging that there will be hardware, software and user glitches that inevitably will happen. Having worked closely with our Clerks and IT team throughout, I do not think it is a fair conclusion that any of those staff members are attempting to exclude anyone or hamper anyone’s right to participate; quite the contrary. Again, we will continue to investigate access issues and work to improve and offer alternative paths of participation as we do, but I would also ask for some understanding of the huge undertaking this process has been to implement and administer and how diligently Ms. Purrington and IT have been working for us all. Suggesting nefarious intent on their parts is neither accurate nor helpful in resolving problems. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Will Powers <drwill.powers7@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 6:09 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: Denial of free speech Ms. Dietrick: I am asking, once again, that you investigate the city's continuing denial of my right to free speech at legally-defined public meetings. For months now, I have attempted to "join the webinar" for the Tree Committee meetings; for months, now, it just somehow doesn't work, and I believe this is intentional. Through yeoman effort on my part tonight, I was able to "attend" via telephone, but I was able to join only late and phone-"attendance" is lesser than video attendance. Please investigate Ms. Purrington's continuing lack of effort to allow me to attend via video. For longer than anyone currently on the committee, I have attended these meetings in person and I resent not being able to "attend" them now. Please investigate; I have a right to free speech and it is being denied. Will Powers, Ph.D c: Mayor Harmon Derek Johnson Council members Matt Horn (Public "Works for the Developers" Director) T Purrington From:Will Powers To:Dietrick, Christine Cc:Harmon, Heidi; E-mail Council Website; Johnson, Derek; Horn, Matt; Purrington, Teresa Subject:Re: Denial of free speech Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:18:35 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Ms. Dietrick: You're a capable city attorney and I'm cognizant of the fact that you need to mollify those who pay your salary, but, come on! Every month, I get an email from Ms. Purrington, wherein there's a prompt that says "join meeting". So, I click on that, follow all the prompts and, voila!, nothing. Well, I shouldn't say nothing: at last night's Tree Committee meeting, I did get video of the committee members, but the only way I could hear them was by connecting via phone. Then, after many tries, I was able to speak, but, again, only over the phone. I recall that, back during the 70s and beyond, people often said, "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we [fill in the blank]"? Well, there's a rough analogy now: "Well, we're doing a lousy job of [fill in the blank], but, don't you know, it's because of that darn Covid!" Covid is now the excuse for all manner of incompetence and poor service, both in the public and private sectors. So, no, I do not buy the suggestion that I keep getting denied my right to free speech because of the fact that "all platforms don't work for all people". (Translation: Blame the victim.) Just last week, I took part in a court hearing via Zoom (that's the case where, as you know, I am suing the city of San Luis because a Parking "Services" employee repeatedly assaulted me on a city street, while he drove a city vehicle) and everything went perfectly: I checked in to the meeting, I listened to other cases, I took part in the hearing when it was my turn, and I was able to have my say. Such a smooth experience never happens when I deal with this city. Thus, it's obvious that it's the city's fault, not mine. Finally, regarding your statement that, "Suggesting nefarious intent...is neither accurate nor helpful", it seems to me that you have two options: either these city employees have "nefarious intent" or they're incompetent. Which choice do YOU prefer? Will Powers, Ph.D c: Mayor Harmon Derek Johnson Council members Matt Horn, Public "Works for the Developers" Director T. Purrington On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:03 AM Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> wrote: Will, Teresa and I will follow up. I certainly appreciate, and often experience, the technology frustration – it doesn’t love me and I don’t love it. All of us, from our remote school students, to governments, to private sector, are all doing our best to muddle through until we can be together in person again. That said, Teresa Purrington and our IT staff are managing multiple platforms to accommodate access and the technology needs of an extremely broad spectrum of constituents, vendors, customers and partner agencies. The unfortunate reality it that all platforms don’t work well for all people and we’ve tried to balance in choosing those that offer the greatest access and flexibility, acknowledging that there will be hardware, software and user glitches that inevitably will happen. Having worked closely with our Clerks and IT team throughout, I do not think it is a fair conclusion that any of those staff members are attempting to exclude anyone or hamper anyone’s right to participate; quite the contrary. Again, we will continue to investigate access issues and work to improve and offer alternative paths of participation as we do, but I would also ask for some understanding of the huge undertaking this process has been to implement and administer and how diligently Ms. Purrington and IT have been working for us all. Suggesting nefarious intent on their parts is neither accurate nor helpful in resolving problems. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Will Powers <drwill.powers7@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 6:09 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; E- mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: Denial of free speech Ms. Dietrick: I am asking, once again, that you investigate the city's continuing denial of my right to free speech at legally-defined public meetings. For months now, I have attempted to "join the webinar" for the Tree Committee meetings; for months, now, it just somehow doesn't work, and I believe this is intentional. Through yeoman effort on my part tonight, I was able to "attend" via telephone, but I was able to join only late and phone-"attendance" is lesser than video attendance. Please investigate Ms. Purrington's continuing lack of effort to allow me to attend via video. For longer than anyone currently on the committee, I have attended these meetings in person and I resent not being able to "attend" them now. Please investigate; I have a right to free speech and it is being denied. Will Powers, Ph.D c: Mayor Harmon Derek Johnson Council members Matt Horn (Public "Works for the Developers" Director) T Purrington From:Ben Libbey To:City_Attorney Cc:Shawn.denino@hcd.ca.gov; Sonja Trauss Subject:San Luis Obispo Wastewater Offset Program and its Application to Accessory Dwelling Units Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:36:45 PM Attachments:Statutory Conflicts within SLO Wastewater Offset program.pdf 1/13/2021 Christine Dietrick San Luis Obispo City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 attorney@slocity.org; Via Email Re: San Luis Obispo Wastewater Offset Program and its Application to Accessory Dwelling Units City Attorney Dietrick, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the city of San Luis Obispo has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the fees and charges applied to new Accessory Dwelling Units. We believe that the current requirements for sewer lateral replacement for new ADUs in portions of the city violates state law in several respects and subjects the city to significant litigation risk. Different types of ADUs are treated differently under state law when it comes to fees and charges that can be applied for utility connections. Notably, applicants building an ADU within the existing building envelope may not be charged an additional connection fee. This type of ADU is described in the statute as follows. 65852.2 (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following: (A) One accessory dwelling unit or one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply: (i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single- family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. (ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. This type of ADU includes those built within the existing space of a single family dwelling as well as those constructed within an accessory structure like a garage or workshop. This type of ADU is singled out in the statute as being exempt from connection fees. 65852.2 (f)...(4) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family home. Any connection fees applied to ADUs covered by 65852.2(e)(1)(A) are entirely unlawful, except in the case of the construction of an entirely new primary dwelling. For the purposes of calculating fees and charges this type of ADU is not considered an additional or distinct residential use. We do not believe that this type of ADU would trigger the city’s lateral replacement requirement in most cases, however without more information on how the lateral replacement provision interacts with accessory structures we cannot know for sure. The city is allowed to charge connection fees for Multi-family ADUs and ADUs not built within the existing envelope of a Single Family Home. However, these fees may not be calculated as if the ADU is a new residential use and fees must be proportionate to the burden of the ADU. 65852.2 (f)...(5) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. The effect of this statute is relatively simple. ADUs cannot be treated the same as a new residential use, such as a new multifamily dwelling or single family dwelling. Instead fees need to be assessed based on the proportional utility burden of the proposed ADU. The city can choose to assess this fee based on square footage or on drainage fixture unit values but either way the fee needs to correlate to impact. Currently, the city treats all new residential development beyond a particular square footage equally. This violates both parts of the statute as it levies the same burden on ADUs as entirely new residential uses and fails to distinguish between ADUs relative to their proportional burden on the utility system. We encourage the District to change this policy to better facilitate the creation of ADUs and also to relieve litigation risk. A proportional drainage fixture unit value based system would more accurately charge applicants in proportion to the additional load generated on the sewage system. If the city is more comfortable with a square footage model, as the current program already uses certain similar metrics, that could also be a good solution. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law From:Jorgensen, Markie To:Chuck Francoeur; Alan Carnegie Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Montalban Project Date:Friday, January 29, 2021 3:13:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Chuck and Alan, Thanks for your time yesterday. Kyle and I had a chance to connect with Michael Codron this afternoon about your proposed modifications to the Community room. Below is summary of the City’s position: 1. Current Proposal: Staff would support below ground modifications to the current entitlement, meaning adjustment in the foundation or rough in plumbing that sets the space up for potential conversion to an ADU. However, staff will not support additional finish plumbing or kitchen amenities at this time as such modifications would render the space non-conforming with the entitlement. 2. Interpretation of Government Code Section 65852.2 and City Zoning Regs: Section 65852.2(e)(1) states that “a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following. . . .” Alan’s memo states that the City should construe “residential or mixed-use zone” as used in that section to “mean any zone where residential uses are permitted by- right or by conditional use.” As currently drafted, Section 17.86.020 of the City’s Zoning Regs inadvertently supports Alan’s proposed construction. However, upon review of Government Code Section 65852.2 by the City Attorney’s office as well as applicable legislative history, we do not believe Section 65852.2(e)(1) should be construed in such a broad manner. The plain text is clear. The City will be revising Section 17.86.020 of the Zoning Regulations accordingly to reflect the plain meaning of Section 65852.2(e)(1) (i.e., remove reference to allowable uses within a zone). We don’t have a timeline for that revision, but it will happen at some point this year. So under our current Zoning Regulations, your plan to convert the Community Room into an ADU is permissible. However, please note that per Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(C)(i), the multifamily dwelling structure must be existing before the Community Room can be converted to an ADU. Therefore, your separate building permit application for the ADU must be submitted after construction of the mixed-use structure. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Markie Markie Jorgensen Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mjorgensen@slocity.org T 805.781.7141 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From:Chuck Francoeur To:Bell, Kyle Subject:FW: Montalban Project ADU Date:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:42:21 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hi Kyle, Please take a look and give me a call when you have a few minutes. Many thanks, Chuck Francoeur | Montage Development Inc. 23945 Calabasas Rd. | Suite 116 | Calabasas | CA | 91302 Cell: 818.652.6705 | Tel: 818.501.1800 | Fax: 818.501.1803 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it are the property of Montage Development, Inc.. and/or one or more of its related or affiliated entities, and may contain information which is proprietary, confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby instructed that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Nothing contained in this e-mail transmission may be construed to bind the individual sender, Montage Development, Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, related entities, northeir officers, directors, shareholders, members, managers, employees, agents, or any of them, to any contractual term, promise or condition of any kind. 200X_Disclaimer P Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Chuck Francoeur Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 4:05 PM To: Stephen Ross <sross@montagedev.com> Subject: FW: Montalban Project Please read asap Chuck Francoeur | Montage Development Inc. 23945 Calabasas Rd. | Suite 116 | Calabasas | CA | 91302 Cell: 818.652.6705 | Tel: 818.501.1800 | Fax: 818.501.1803 IMPORTANT NOTICE:This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it are the property of Montage Development, Inc.. and/or one or more of its related or affiliated entities, and may contain information which is proprietary, confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby instructed that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Nothing contained in this e-mail transmission may be construed to bind the individual sender, Montage Development, Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, related entities, nor their officers, directors, shareholders, members, managers, employees, agents, or any of them, to any contractual term, promise orcondition of any kind. 200X_Disclaimer P Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Jorgensen, Markie [mailto:mjorgensen@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 3:14 PM To: Chuck Francoeur <cfrancoeur@montagedev.com>; Alan Carnegie <carnegielaw@gmail.com> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: Montalban Project Chuck and Alan, Thanks for your time yesterday. Kyle and I had a chance to connect with Michael Codron this afternoon about your proposed modifications to the Community room. Below is summary of the City’s position: 1. Current Proposal: Staff would support below ground modifications to the current entitlement, meaning adjustment in the foundation or rough in plumbing that sets the space up for potential conversion to an ADU. However, staff will not support additional finish plumbing or kitchen amenities at this time as such modifications would render the space non-conforming with the entitlement. 2. Interpretation of Government Code Section 65852.2 and City Zoning Regs: Section 65852.2(e)(1) states that “a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following. . . .” Alan’s memo states that the City should construe “residential or mixed-use zone” as used in that section to “mean any zone where residential uses are permitted by- right or by conditional use.” As currently drafted, Section 17.86.020 of the City’s Zoning Regs inadvertently supports Alan’s proposed construction. However, upon review of Government Code Section 65852.2 by the City Attorney’s office as well as applicable legislative history, we do not believe Section 65852.2(e)(1) should be construed in such a broad manner. The plain text is clear. The City will be revising Section 17.86.020 of the Zoning Regulations accordingly to reflect the plain meaning of Section 65852.2(e)(1) (i.e., remove reference to allowable uses within a zone). We don’t have a timeline for that revision, but it will happen at some point this year. So under our current Zoning Regulations, your plan to convert the Community Room into an ADU is permissible. However, please note that per Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(C)(i), the multifamily dwelling structure must be existing before the Community Room can be converted to an ADU. Therefore, your separate building permit application for the ADU must be submitted after construction of the mixed-use structure. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Markie Markie Jorgensen Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mjorgensen@slocity.org T 805.781.7141 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From:Dietrick, Christine To:Bill Douglass; David M. Fleishman Cc:Gonzalez, Maria Subject:RE: Garden Street Project Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 12:21:26 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Bill, Thanks for reaching out. I am cc’ing Dave Fleishman whose firm provides supplemental legal services to my office and whom I will ask to work with us on this matter. I am also cc’ing my legal assistant, Maria, who can help us coordinate schedules. In the interim, if there are documents that you would like us to start reviewing, please feel free to forward those to both Dave and me. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Bill Douglass <bdouglass@amblaw.com> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:06 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Garden Street Project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Ms. Dietrick: I am writing to follow up on my recent phone message. This firm represents the owners of the real property at the northeast corner of Broad and Marsh Streets. Their property abuts the Garden Street Hotel Project. Earlier in the Project’s life (seven years ago), my clients negotiated with the Project owners to place an easement in the “alley behind” my clients’ property, where there had been historic use on the City’s parking lot. The alleyway is not owned by the Project owners; they hold it under a long-term ground lease from the City. Therefore, we also need agreement on the easement with the City. Of course, there have been numerous people in the Development Department working on the Project over the years, but at this point our understanding is that we need to work out the legal terms with your office and then things can get finalized with every other party/office. There are details that I hope to go over with you, or the person in your office who you would like to handle this. My understanding is that the issue has not yet been looked at by your office, so it is first impression. I will look forward to hearing from you or someone at your office. Best, Bill William Douglass Andre, Morris & Buttery, A Professional Law Corporation 1102 Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 543-4171. Web: www.amblaw.com Email: wdouglass@amblaw.com Also located at: 2739 Santa Maria Way, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 1430 Santa Maria, CA 93456-1430 Notice: The information contained in this transmission is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805) 543-4171 and delete the transmission from your system. Thank you. From:Lisa Irot To:Hamish Marshall; Dietrick, Christine Subject:Re title report for Hotel Date:Friday, April 2, 2021 11:55:27 AM Attachments:Preliminary Report - CA (019).pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Hamish, Attached is the most recent title report I could find on the project. Have a great day! Lisa Irot Subdivision Manager First American Title 899 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Direct: (805) 786-2042 Fax: (866) 397-7092 Email: lirot@firstam.com **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** -----Original Message----- From: Hamish Marshall <hamish@auzcodev.com> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:40 AM To: Lisa Irot <lirot@firstam.com>; Christine Dietrick <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: [External] Re title report for Hotel Lisa I hope this finds you well. Could you please release a copy of the title report for the Hotel to the. It’s? I have copied Christine on this e mail. Thanks Hamish Sent from my iPhone ****************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list. Thank you. ****************************************************************************************** FAFLD From:Dietrick, Christine To:Lisa Irot; Hamish Marshall Subject:RE: Re title report for Hotel Date:Friday, April 2, 2021 12:51:00 PM Thank you Lisa! -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Irot <lirot@firstam.com> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:55 AM To: Hamish Marshall <hamish@auzcodev.com>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re title report for Hotel This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Hamish, Attached is the most recent title report I could find on the project. Have a great day! Lisa Irot Subdivision Manager First American Title 899 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Direct: (805) 786-2042 Fax: (866) 397-7092 Email: lirot@firstam.com **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** -----Original Message----- From: Hamish Marshall <hamish@auzcodev.com> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:40 AM To: Lisa Irot <lirot@firstam.com>; Christine Dietrick <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: [External] Re title report for Hotel Lisa I hope this finds you well. Could you please release a copy of the title report for the Hotel to the. It’s? I have copied Christine on this e mail. Thanks Hamish Sent from my iPhone ****************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list. Thank you. ****************************************************************************************** FAFLD From:Todd Miller To:Dietrick, Christine Subject:Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:03:39 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Dietrick, Christine To:Todd Miller Subject:RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:17:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hello Mr. Miller. I was expecting to hear from you and just wanted to let you know that it is a Council day and I won’t have an opportunity to focus on this today, but I’ve receive it, appreciate you reaching out and I will be in contact once I have had an opportunity to understand the issues. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:04 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Todd Miller To:Dietrick, Christine Subject:Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:25:50 PM Attachments:image004.png image003.png image002.png image001.png Hi Christine, You can call me Todd, and yes, take your time. I know you're busy, especially on a Tues, and I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly. I'll leave this for your consideration; should we temporarily postpone the Appeal Hearing scheduled for the 8th, so that we have time to discuss once you've had a chance to look over the issues? I'll leave it up to you. No need to get back to me right away or acknowledge receipt of this. Thank you for your time. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 4:17 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hello Mr. Miller. I was expecting to hear from you and just wanted to let you know that it is a Council day and I won’t have an opportunity to focus on this today, but I’ve receive it, appreciate you reaching out and I will be in contact once I have had an opportunity to understand the issues. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:04 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Dietrick, Christine To:Todd Miller Subject:RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:03:00 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Todd, I apologize for the delay in circling back with you. As I may have mentioned, my Asst. City Attorney was out of town last week and you may have read that we had some breaking news regarding our Mayor’s transition that redirected my week. I did want to let you know that I am talking with the CDD Director and our Assistant City Manager for the Community Services group today regarding the postponement of the appeal to give us an opportunity to dive down on the facts and applicable codes and see if there is a path to resolution short of appeal and/or litigation. I will touch base with you no later than tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:26 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hi Christine, You can call me Todd, and yes, take your time. I know you're busy, especially on a Tues, and I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly. I'll leave this for your consideration; should we temporarily postpone the Appeal Hearing scheduled for the 8th, so that we have time to discuss once you've had a chance to look over the issues? I'll leave it up to you. No need to get back to me right away or acknowledge receipt of this. Thank you for your time. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 4:17 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hello Mr. Miller. I was expecting to hear from you and just wanted to let you know that it is a Council day and I won’t have an opportunity to focus on this today, but I’ve receive it, appreciate you reaching out and I will be in contact once I have had an opportunity to understand the issues. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:04 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Todd Miller To:Dietrick, Christine Subject:Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 2:40:45 PM Attachments:image004.png image003.png image002.png image001.png Hi Christine, Thank you for taking so much time to talk to me yesterday. I appreciate what you did. You mentioned something about codes regarding modifications to existing accessory structures. If you have a moment, can you send me a pdf or link to that pertinent information? Thanks again, Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2021 11:03 am Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Todd, I apologize for the delay in circling back with you. As I may have mentioned, my Asst. City Attorney was out of town last week and you may have read that we had some breaking news regarding our Mayor’s transition that redirected my week. I did want to let you know that I am talking with the CDD Director and our Assistant City Manager for the Community Services group today regarding the postponement of the appeal to give us an opportunity to dive down on the facts and applicable codes and see if there is a path to resolution short of appeal and/or litigation. I will touch base with you no later than tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:26 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hi Christine, You can call me Todd, and yes, take your time. I know you're busy, especially on a Tues, and I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly. I'll leave this for your consideration; should we temporarily postpone the Appeal Hearing scheduled for the 8th, so that we have time to discuss once you've had a chance to look over the issues? I'll leave it up to you. No need to get back to me right away or acknowledge receipt of this. Thank you for your time. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 4:17 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hello Mr. Miller. I was expecting to hear from you and just wanted to let you know that it is a Council day and I won’t have an opportunity to focus on this today, but I’ve receive it, appreciate you reaching out and I will be in contact once I have had an opportunity to understand the issues. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:04 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Todd Miller To:Dietrick, Christine Subject:Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:41:17 PM Attachments:image002.png image001.png image004.png image003.png Thanks for that link. That one appears to address the issue of an accessory building NOT being allowed to become some sort of livable space. That's not applicable to me. The section I'm asking about, is the one you referenced towards the end of the conversation last night, when you wanted me to clarify that there was a large carport in the same location, and I had replaced it with this garage. You mentioned something about "replacing an existing accessory building...." (I'm not quoting you accurately there. That's just what I remember you talking about, but I didn't have time to write down the applicable code section. -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Cc: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 3:24 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project No problem Todd. I know it was not a great conversation from your end, but I also appreciate you taking the time and sharing your perspective. The primary Code section I was referring to regarding Accessory Structures is here https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.70.010, specifically sections C & D related to the applicable development standards and process requirements (i.e., building permit). There should be a pretty detailed analysis of the applicability of all other relevant City policies in the staff report that will publish (I believe today or tomorrow) that should also be helpful in understanding staff’s analysis and the requirements that govern staff discretion in these situations. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 2:41 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hi Christine, Thank you for taking so much time to talk to me yesterday. I appreciate what you did. You mentioned something about codes regarding modifications to existing accessory structures. If you have a moment, can you send me a pdf or link to that pertinent information? Thanks again, Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2021 11:03 am Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Todd, I apologize for the delay in circling back with you. As I may have mentioned, my Asst. City Attorney was out of town last week and you may have read that we had some breaking news regarding our Mayor’s transition that redirected my week. I did want to let you know that I am talking with the CDD Director and our Assistant City Manager for the Community Services group today regarding the postponement of the appeal to give us an opportunity to dive down on the facts and applicable codes and see if there is a path to resolution short of appeal and/or litigation. I will touch base with you no later than tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:26 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hi Christine, You can call me Todd, and yes, take your time. I know you're busy, especially on a Tues, and I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly. I'll leave this for your consideration; should we temporarily postpone the Appeal Hearing scheduled for the 8th, so that we have time to discuss once you've had a chance to look over the issues? I'll leave it up to you. No need to get back to me right away or acknowledge receipt of this. Thank you for your time. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 4:17 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hello Mr. Miller. I was expecting to hear from you and just wanted to let you know that it is a Council day and I won’t have an opportunity to focus on this today, but I’ve receive it, appreciate you reaching out and I will be in contact once I have had an opportunity to understand the issues. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:04 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Dietrick, Christine To:Todd Miller Cc:Jorgensen, Markie Subject:RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Date:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:49:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Agreed that the stated primary purpose of the development and building permit requirements in 70.010 is to prevent conversion, but the permitting requirements and development standards apply to all such structures (to require permits and review to ensure development standards compliance and deter construction in a manner that lends itself to conversion). In any event, I think the other provision we indicated we reviewed for potential application was the non-conforming structures provisions https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.92.020. However, as we discussed, we concluded that those provisions were inapplicable here because the prior structure also did not appear to be permitted or to predate zoning or building permit requirements, and because the prior structure was being completely replaced with an entirely new structure. Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:41 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Thanks for that link. That one appears to address the issue of an accessory building NOT being allowed to become some sort of livable space. That's not applicable to me. The section I'm asking about, is the one you referenced towards the end of the conversation last night, when you wanted me to clarify that there was a large carport in the same location, and I had replaced it with this garage. You mentioned something about "replacing an existing accessory building...." (I'm not quoting you accurately there. That's just what I remember you talking about, but I didn't have time to write down the applicable code section. -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Cc: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 3:24 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project No problem Todd. I know it was not a great conversation from your end, but I also appreciate you taking the time and sharing your perspective. The primary Code section I was referring to regarding Accessory Structures is here https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.70.010, specifically sections C & D related to the applicable development standards and process requirements (i.e., building permit). There should be a pretty detailed analysis of the applicability of all other relevant City policies in the staff report that will publish (I believe today or tomorrow) that should also be helpful in understanding staff’s analysis and the requirements that govern staff discretion in these situations. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 2:41 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hi Christine, Thank you for taking so much time to talk to me yesterday. I appreciate what you did. You mentioned something about codes regarding modifications to existing accessory structures. If you have a moment, can you send me a pdf or link to that pertinent information? Thanks again, Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2021 11:03 am Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Todd, I apologize for the delay in circling back with you. As I may have mentioned, my Asst. City Attorney was out of town last week and you may have read that we had some breaking news regarding our Mayor’s transition that redirected my week. I did want to let you know that I am talking with the CDD Director and our Assistant City Manager for the Community Services group today regarding the postponement of the appeal to give us an opportunity to dive down on the facts and applicable codes and see if there is a path to resolution short of appeal and/or litigation. I will touch base with you no later than tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:26 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hi Christine, You can call me Todd, and yes, take your time. I know you're busy, especially on a Tues, and I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly. I'll leave this for your consideration; should we temporarily postpone the Appeal Hearing scheduled for the 8th, so that we have time to discuss once you've had a chance to look over the issues? I'll leave it up to you. No need to get back to me right away or acknowledge receipt of this. Thank you for your time. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> To: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 4:17 pm Subject: RE: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project Hello Mr. Miller. I was expecting to hear from you and just wanted to let you know that it is a Council day and I won’t have an opportunity to focus on this today, but I’ve receive it, appreciate you reaching out and I will be in contact once I have had an opportunity to understand the issues. Thanks for your patience. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney- client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Todd Miller <austinado16@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:04 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Request from Todd Miller at 1953 Chorro St. Re: a garage project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Dietrick, I'm writing to you on the advice of Ben Kulick of Stalwork Construction. My name is Todd Miller, homeowner of the property at 1953 Chorro St. I'm currently embattled with the SLO Planning Dept. over a pre-fab metal garage that I began erecting on July 4th, 2019. I've had a large pre-fab metal carport in that exact location for approximately 20yrs, and had no idea that these types of structures required any type of permit process through the City. Steve Sheats red-tagged the project on Friday, July 5, 2019. I'll keep the remaining history of the situation brief, in an effort to no slog you down with a protracted initial email, and with the hope that you and I might apply reasonable minds to this, and resolve it without further undo process, or litigation. Just a few days after being red-tagged, I met with Steve Sheats in planning. We discussed what was needed, and I returned in early August 2019 with the requested drawings, and paid the Planning Submittal Fee. At that time, I asked if I should provide photos showing how the City had historically been allowing accessory buildings and homes to be built in the back yards of neighboring properties, and I was told, "I don't need photos. I know how everything is being allowed to be built within the setbacks. I'll have no problem getting this [project] through." I then asked if I could finish the building because it was both unsafe and an eye-sore, in it's current condition. Kyle in Planning, verbally told me that yes, I could finish it. I finished the building, and in October 2019, had a meeting with Cassidy McSurdy in Planning, and the Fire Marshal, who also represented the Building Dept. Fire/Building requested a 1hr fire wall on the one side and one end nearest the fencing (located inside the 5' setback), and engineering calcs for how it's assembled. Ms. McSurdy and I discussed methods of softening the look of the building. From there the project fell into the hands of Walter Oetzell, where it immediately degraded into me being told that it was a building that would not be allowed, based on it's size, construction materials, and location with my Victorian home, and that no exception would be made to the 5' setback requirement because there were not mitigating circumstances with the property. No amount of logical discourse changed what appear to be Walter's "feelings" about the building and the project, even after he visited the site, where he saw: 1) that the building can only be seen from inside my back yard, 2) that I've made it look like an old time shop in order to match well with my vintage home, 3) that there is a giant palm tree in the way (which we relocated in order to save, at the request of the City when we moved and restored our home) of access to the building, which will only be worsened should the building be moved further inward and forward towards the tree. Walter appears to also be denying that: 1) I was told by anyone in the City to finish the building, 2) that they would have no problem getting the project through, 3) that the palm tree exists and should be consider a mitigating site factor, 3) that the meeting with Ms. McSurdy and the Fire Mashall/Building Dept. occurred. In fact, when I asked Walter about that meeting, where there was never a single mention of "You can't build this, or have this on your property at all" as compared to his stance on the project, he told me there was no record of that meeting, and that Ms. McSurdy no longer works in Planning. Walter and his supervisors have officially denied the project, and I have appealed their decision. The appeal hearing is Sept. 8 (next week). A quick history on my property. In 1993, my wife and I relocated and restored into authentic condition, inside and out, a 1903 era Queen Anne Victorian. I did all of the Architecture and acted as the General on project, taking it through CHC, ARC, and City Council approval, along with the normal Building, Planning, and Fire Dept. approval processes. I had no issues with the City, and it was not uncommon for me to invite members of the Depts. and the Building Inspectors over to take a look at our progress. Ultimately, I went through the process of getting the home registered on the City's Master List of Historic Properties, and we received an Obispo Beautiful Award in the early 2000's. The home was featured on a home tour by The Monday Club, representing it's era of Victorians. We have always been very proud of it and the work we did. Sadly, in the face of what's going on with the City, I removed the home's volunteered membership from the Master List on March 1, 2021, and turned in the plaque. As mentioned above, my hope is that you and I can resolve this situation, and hopefully we can meet in person and discuss it further. I would like to avoid litigation if possible, as it's such a tremendous waste of time and financial resources, for both of us. Literally, that is money that can be used to finish the project, vs paying attorney fees. Warm Regards, Todd Miller 1953 Chorro St. (805)235-2969 From:Dietrick, Christine To:Joanna Maino Whitcher; Scott, Rick Cc:Goren, Rebecca; Klevins, John; Rico, Christopher; Koznek, Tim; Johnson, Derek; Hermann, Greg; Stanwyck, Shelly; Szentesi, Whitney; Tom Maino; Mikie Maino; E-mail Council Website Subject:RE: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 3:21:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Joanna, I too certainly understand and feel your frustration. Thank you, Chief, for sharing the information below about the efforts the City is taking to try to address these issues, balancing compassion and offers of services to those willing to access them with accountability for criminal or adverse conduct by individuals resistant to help. Joanna, as an attorney, I thought you might also be interested in the legal context increasingly constraining cities, and all government agencies, from effectively managing the types of issues you are experiencing, and understandably resulting in the level of disbelief and frustration you are expressing. We, and I’m sure you, see the impacts of these types of activities broadly expanding on public properties as well. As a matter of background, these issues began to gain focus and momentum in the courts in California back in the early 2000s and culminated with a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (the federal circuit that has jurisdiction over Western states, including California) called Jones v. City of Los Angeles https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-city-of-los- angeles-21. That opinion was issued in 2006, but later vacated because the parties settled. However, the legal landscape around homelessness, and legal restrictions on enforcement measures that are perceived by many to be “criminalizing homelessness” https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=clr emerged with increasing frequency following Jones. The Ninth Circuit case most people have heard the most about recently, and the case that is most often cited by homeless advocates as prohibiting enforcement actions against homeless individuals, is Martin v. City of Boise (2019 9th Cir. [certiorari denied] . That case held that absolute bans on behaviors that are basic human necessities (sitting, lying, and sleeping, etc.) in public spaces violate homeless individuals’ constitutional Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment when there is no reasonable alternative. Martin further held that so long as there is a “greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters,” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless persons for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public” and that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of penalties for an “involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status of being.” Concurrent with and subsequent to the Martin case making its way through the courts, and ultimately being denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been multiple legislative acts, County jail policies, and court rules (some of which are referenced by the Chief) that have rendered local SLOPD enforcement action effectively moot in addressing some of the most repetitive misdemeanor levels of criminal misconduct impacting our community. Where we are not successful in convincing people to accept services, we receive seemingly endless cycles of calls about the conduct of individuals like John, who has 53 outstanding warrants and multiple citations currently pending filing in my office for alcohol and public urination offenses and, yet, has not been held in jail or compelled into services or treatment in order to effectively address the underlying problems resulting in his criminal conduct. There is also a huge body of cases successfully challenging public agencies removal or disposal of property from homeless encampments or stored on public property. Just days ago, on September 2, 2021, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a Federal District Court order prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing and discarding “bulky items” stored by homeless individuals on public property. The full decision is linked here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/02/20- 55522.pdf . Below, I’m including just a brief sampling of some of the cases, rules and reporting that my office regularly follows in order to advise our staff in accordance with constantly evolving law in their efforts to redirect our unhoused neighbors to shelter and services and to address the adverse impacts of these types of activities on our community. In SLO, we implement the holding of Martin and the property seizure cases by ensuring that shelter and services are offered to unhoused individuals and by ensuring that we are providing opportunity for individuals to identify and move personal property prior to cleanups, as well as the City storing any property that is unattended, but that is not clearly refuse or abandoned, prior to any enforcement action on public property. We also assist with CAT Team/social work outreach to indivduals who are removed by private parties from private property in the hope that we can help break the cycle and move people into better situations for themselves and the community as a whole. However, even with those extraordinary efforts by our relatively small field staff (only three of whose job descriptions even specifically include this type of work) we are threatened with litigation virtually every time we undertake a cleanup or encampment removal effort. We often feel that we are isolated from some of the more complicated issues here in SLO, but in this area, that is certainly not the case. For instance, as of this moment, a local advocacy group, California Rural Legal Assistance and several of its local and national legal partners, has served three formal property destruction claims against the City and has alleged numerous other legal violations on behalf of five named clients, ranging from Fourth and Eighth Amendment Constitutional violations, to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to unlawful relocation, citation and arrest related to the City’s efforts to clean and remove encampments from park, creek, open space, and right of way areas. Obviously, this is a complex problem that did not arise overnight. Likewise, the solutions won’t emerge overnight. The courts are increasingly making it clear in their recent decisions that they are going to force social, policy and political solutions to these complex problems, rather than continuing to deal with them on a fact-bound, case by case basis in the courts. Those harder solutions will take all of us working together unrelentingly. We appreciate you reaching out to us and trying to figure out how to be part of the solution. We are hopeful that the many efforts the City is undertaking will bear fruit and result in a reduction of the number of people unhoused and the related impacts on our community. We also hope that, combined with the efforts of our compassionate, highly engaged community members, we can work with our local courts and law enforcement partners to enforce reasonable expectations of personal accountability and commitment to safety and community welfare. While the City is certainly trying to step up to its role in solving this problem, I would also encourage you to advocate to your representatives on the County Board of Supervisors and your state and federal representative, as well as your DA, Sherriff, and courts, all of whom combined control the disproportionate share of resources and policy tools to move the needle in the right direction on these issues. As I believe your Councilmember may have expressed, there is significant work the city is doing and has committed people and funds to continue to do, but it is entirely unrealistic to believe that the City of San Luis Obispo alone can, or should, be in the lead on these broad social services and criminal justice policy issues. We can try to treat the symptoms, but we are not the entity funded or given authority to cure the underlying illness. Emergency Bail Schedule a. CA Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 4 i.Sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars. ii.Most misdemeanors are cited and released within 12 hours. Homeless persons and property in public spaces a. (Garcia v. City of Los Angeles (2020 C.D. California)) Upheld (9th Cir, 9/2021): Homeless individuals who had personal property taken or destroyed during cleanups of public spaces brought suit against the city based on claims of illegal seizure under both federal and California law. i.Garcia held that cities cannot summarily seize and destroy personal property left in public spaces, regardless of property dimensions, unless there is an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents and immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime or contraband. b. (Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2012 9th Cir.)): Homeless individuals brought putative civil rights class action against the city, alleging that it confiscated and destroyed their personal possessions in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Individuals sought preliminary injunction against the city. i.Lavan held that, although a diminished expectation of privacy, homeless persons retain the protections of the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable seizures of their personal property on public property, whether that personal property is enclosed within a makeshift shelter or left on sidewalks in violation of municipal ordinance. c. (Santa Cruz Homeless Union v. Bernal (2021 N.D. California)): Individuals living in a homeless encampment in a city park brought suit against the city, seeking injunctive relief for claim that the city’s closure and clearing of the encampment deprived them of their substantive due process rights. i.Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted. ii.Court held that the city’s interest in cleaning and clearing the encampment was outweighed by the Plaintiffs’ interest in their constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that homeless persons have access to shelter and vital services during the pandemic. Liability and injunctions against cities a. “Cities sued for sweeping homeless encampments during the pandemic.” Minneapolis and Denver, October 2020. i.Homeless individuals displaced during homeless encampment sweeps sued the cities, claiming the practice to be unusually cruel and unconstitutionally destructive of property. b. “Lawsuit filed against the sweeps and the city’s ongoing violations of lawsuit settlement.” Denver, October 2020 i.Injunction to stop homeless sweeps during COVID-19 pandemic and afterwards and the seizure and destruction of property without notice. c. “Lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from seizing and discarding homeless people’s belongings.” July 2019. i.Homeless individuals filed suit against city requesting an injunction against the city’s seizure and summary destruction of “bulky items” on city sidewalks, claiming that the city’s cleanup law and encampment enforcement violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. d. “Federal Court issues restraining order against city of Houston in homelessness suit.” August 2017. i.Injunction prevents law enforcement from citing or arresting anyone for using a tent on public property. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:07 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Good morning Chief Scott, I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday with Officer Koznek, and I appreciate your email and constructive comments as well. Your response and potential path to resolution is quite distinguishable from an earlier dismissive response that I received from one of our SLO City Council members. According to her, I am confused and unfairly putting on the City a measure of responsibility for the homeless blight that plagues our downtown core. Needless to say, I do not need to be condescended for raising a legitimate issue and seeking solutions from City leaders on a City problem that is, clearly, not isolated to me and my properties. The council woman’s response to me was neither helpful nor responsive. So, again, I do appreciate your consideration of the issue and time in responding. I can only hope the City’s 2021-2023 plans you outlined will have some impact. In the meantime, I will continue to contact the PD as circumstances warrant and am, obviously, in favor of your proposal to seek a bail enhancement with regard to “John”. Regards, Joanna M. Whitcher Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:  BCC CC: Good afternoon Ms. Whitcher, Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns on this matter. My staff and I certainly share your frustration and hope to work toward a more positive outcome for you and your fellow business owners. By now you should have heard personally from Officer Koznek or soon will, to have a more in-depth conversation on this particular case and how we can help. There are a number of reasons why this person keeps reappearing despite our best efforts, mostly attributed to the department’s lack of ability to arrest. This is a direct reflection of the recently adopted measures by the County Judiciary supporting Zero Bail. Trespassing is not a bailable offense, meaning it is “cite and release” only and the person cannot be admitted or held in jail unless he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and is deemed a danger to himself or others. What this essentially means is that every time we find “John”, the best we can do is remove him from your property and then issue him a misdemeanor citation and leave. The next step in the process is the case goes to court where he is either convicted or not of the offense. Not speaking on this case in particular, but many transient people do not show up for court, which triggers the warrant of arrest process. A misdemeanor warrant is also not bailable and the person remains out of jail and the cycle starts over. We do enforce trespassing, but as you can see the results of this work are hard to see and appear ineffective. Arresting someone is not always the answer, but it is one of the tools we need to promote accountability. I realize this is not the information you wanted to hear and most likely only increases your frustration. As such, I would like to share what our plan and next steps are to help. Our CAT Team is highly skilled and has had successes in handling these more complex situations. We are in communication with the court and are seeking a path which will ultimately allow us to finally arrest and hold “John” on a bail enhancement. With this option, we can hopefully take him off the streets where he can stand trial for the many outstanding violations already logged against him. A bail enhancement is not a tool that is always available to us, but in this case and under these repeat circumstances, I feel confident that these are the right conditions to favor the department being granted this option by the court. I realize you do not wish to continue to call PD every time he is there, but we need to continue to respond and do our best to log and prosecute these occurrences. As I close, I just wanted to provide you some additional information about how the city is working to address this highly complex and sociological issue we are facing. I fully acknowledge your case is different and I think we have an effective plan to make a difference, but here is some additional information on this topic you might find informative. While the County government is primarily responsible for providing public services to unhoused individuals in our city, we recognize that there are things the City can do to reduce homelessness within our City limits. Here’s what we’re currently doing: First, we’re focused on making it easier to build more affordable and workforce housing here. Second, we are working directly with local non-profit partners and the County to reduce homelessness. And third, we have boots on the ground every day connecting unhoused community members with services to help get them back on their feet. Over the next two years, the City expects to do more than ever regarding housing and homelessness. Per our 2021-23 Financial Plan, we will: Add a second social worker to our Community Action Team (CAT) to support public safety and access to critical homeless services. Add new programs to the Housing Element of the General Plan to expand affordable and workforce housing opportunities downtown and in single-family neighborhoods. Enhance the City’s Homeless Team coordination among various key staff from City Departments and develop a strategic plan to guide City actions. Improve environmental protection and water quality with cleanups of creeks, open spaces, public spaces, and parks. Continue to participate in regional collaboration efforts. Seek out grant opportunities to support regional solutions to reduce chronic homelessness. Create a Mobile Crisis Unit to support our chronically unhoused community members and reduce emergency dispatch of paramedics and law enforcement to those who need non- emergency support. Expand our support for funding of non‐profit social service providers that specialize in services to help people transition into housing. Engage community members and stakeholder groups to support housing and homelessness efforts. Clean up creeks and open space areas associated with abandoned personal property and trash. Financially contribute to additional safe parking programs in San Luis Obispo. Financially contribute to coordinated regional efforts to expand transitional housing and shelter resources. Financially contribute to a 25% increase in the number of beds at 40 Prado Homeless Services center and more. Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and I look forward to working for a more positive outcome. Respectfully, Rick Scott Police Chief <image001.png> Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:19 PM To: Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org> Cc: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com> Subject: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John and Tim, I read with interest today the Tribune story concerning the homeless issues plaguing the area around the Elks Lodge and the City's response to same. Honestly, for property owners in the City of SLO, the City's response is disheartening. I recall that ten years ago the City set its priority to solve homeless; now City officials say homeless solutions are "...a top priority... over the next 2 years." From my perspective, the problem has only increased exponentially over the past 10 years and it continues to be an out of control blight throughout our community. Apart from my opinions above, the purpose of this correspondence is to request your help with solutions for homeless issues that I am regularly encountering. I am an owner of premises located in downtown SLO at 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street (commonly known as the Merrill Lynch Buiilding). The building and the parking lot area are private property. We post signage that it is private property and that no trespassing is allowed. We regularly submit PC 602 letters to the City, as directed. The building exterior is illuminated at night. We have service providers at our premises who regularly remove homeless persons and their detritus. I, personally, clean up trash and debris from the premises and have called the police more than once in the last few weeks to remove homeless persons and their encampments from the premises. On each occasion, I have verbally authorized, beyond the 602 letter, the officers/police department to actively enforce no trespassing at the premises. Bottom line, we do NOT consent to have homeless persons on our private property at any time for any purpose. The serial trespasser that I have had removed from premises is called "John" and he seems to be very well known by the police, based on my observations. I know, however, that he is not alone in his trespass; there are definitely others. "John" and others set themselves up in the building alcoves and stairwells, and disrupt points of building ingress/egress for our tenants and their visitors. We are constantly left to deal with trash and human waste, that is literally deposited ON and around the building. It is truly offensive. To say that the situation is getting old is understatement. I am left to wonder why this situation has become my problem almost every day? What do I need to do to keep "John" and other homeless persons off my private property? Clearly, we do not operate a campground. Our premises are not a garbage dump! Our building is not a toilet! Each time the police have responded to my calls they tell me that all they can do is "re-direct" the person and "hopefully" the person will not return. I find this response wholly unacceptable. I do not have the resources to deal with mentally ill homeless persons. This is why I call the police. Yet, what is the point of my spending an hour or more to call the police dispatch number (which is printed in the newspaper as a resource) and wait to engage with the police when they apparently cannot enforce against the trespass? The police seem to have no way to cure or deter the problem beyond their immediate response to my request for dispatch. So, I return to the same circumstance again the next day and the process repeats . . .again and again and again. It is such an inordinate waste of time and energy and resources. Should I be contacting some other City resource for assistance? Based on your CAT experience and expertise, I am seeking your thoughts and solutions for how we deal with this ongoing situation. How do we keep homeless persons from constantly trespassing, damaging and disrupting business on our private property? Is there nothing the City can do to assist with solving this problem? Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. Regards, Joanna Maino Whitcher Joanna M. Whitcher Maino Tel.: 805-543-7411 Cell: 805-441-0038 joannaw@mainoslo.com From:Dietrick, Christine To:don4mojo@earthlink.net Subject:FW: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 3:25:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png To share with folks as you may see fit. From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 3:22 PM To: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Joanna, I too certainly understand and feel your frustration. Thank you, Chief, for sharing the information below about the efforts the City is taking to try to address these issues, balancing compassion and offers of services to those willing to access them with accountability for criminal or adverse conduct by individuals resistant to help. Joanna, as an attorney, I thought you might also be interested in the legal context increasingly constraining cities, and all government agencies, from effectively managing the types of issues you are experiencing, and understandably resulting in the level of disbelief and frustration you are expressing. We, and I’m sure you, see the impacts of these types of activities broadly expanding on public properties as well. As a matter of background, these issues began to gain focus and momentum in the courts in California back in the early 2000s and culminated with a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (the federal circuit that has jurisdiction over Western states, including California) called Jones v. City of Los Angeles https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-city-of-los- angeles-21. That opinion was issued in 2006, but later vacated because the parties settled. However, the legal landscape around homelessness, and legal restrictions on enforcement measures that are perceived by many to be “criminalizing homelessness” https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=clr emerged with increasing frequency following Jones. The Ninth Circuit case most people have heard the most about recently, and the case that is most often cited by homeless advocates as prohibiting enforcement actions against homeless individuals, is Martin v. City of Boise (2019 9th Cir. [certiorari denied] . That case held that absolute bans on behaviors that are basic human necessities (sitting, lying, and sleeping, etc.) in public spaces violate homeless individuals’ constitutional Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment when there is no reasonable alternative. Martin further held that so long as there is a “greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters,” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless persons for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public” and that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of penalties for an “involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status of being.” Concurrent with and subsequent to the Martin case making its way through the courts, and ultimately being denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been multiple legislative acts, County jail policies, and court rules (some of which are referenced by the Chief) that have rendered local SLOPD enforcement action effectively moot in addressing some of the most repetitive misdemeanor levels of criminal misconduct impacting our community. Where we are not successful in convincing people to accept services, we receive seemingly endless cycles of calls about the conduct of individuals like John, who has 53 outstanding warrants and multiple citations currently pending filing in my office for alcohol and public urination offenses and, yet, has not been held in jail or compelled into services or treatment in order to effectively address the underlying problems resulting in his criminal conduct. There is also a huge body of cases successfully challenging public agencies removal or disposal of property from homeless encampments or stored on public property. Just days ago, on September 2, 2021, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a Federal District Court order prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing and discarding “bulky items” stored by homeless individuals on public property. The full decision is linked here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/02/20- 55522.pdf . Below, I’m including just a brief sampling of some of the cases, rules and reporting that my office regularly follows in order to advise our staff in accordance with constantly evolving law in their efforts to redirect our unhoused neighbors to shelter and services and to address the adverse impacts of these types of activities on our community. In SLO, we implement the holding of Martin and the property seizure cases by ensuring that shelter and services are offered to unhoused individuals and by ensuring that we are providing opportunity for individuals to identify and move personal property prior to cleanups, as well as the City storing any property that is unattended, but that is not clearly refuse or abandoned, prior to any enforcement action on public property. We also assist with CAT Team/social work outreach to indivduals who are removed by private parties from private property in the hope that we can help break the cycle and move people into better situations for themselves and the community as a whole. However, even with those extraordinary efforts by our relatively small field staff (only three of whose job descriptions even specifically include this type of work) we are threatened with litigation virtually every time we undertake a cleanup or encampment removal effort. We often feel that we are isolated from some of the more complicated issues here in SLO, but in this area, that is certainly not the case. For instance, as of this moment, a local advocacy group, California Rural Legal Assistance and several of its local and national legal partners, has served three formal property destruction claims against the City and has alleged numerous other legal violations on behalf of five named clients, ranging from Fourth and Eighth Amendment Constitutional violations, to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to unlawful relocation, citation and arrest related to the City’s efforts to clean and remove encampments from park, creek, open space, and right of way areas. Obviously, this is a complex problem that did not arise overnight. Likewise, the solutions won’t emerge overnight. The courts are increasingly making it clear in their recent decisions that they are going to force social, policy and political solutions to these complex problems, rather than continuing to deal with them on a fact-bound, case by case basis in the courts. Those harder solutions will take all of us working together unrelentingly. We appreciate you reaching out to us and trying to figure out how to be part of the solution. We are hopeful that the many efforts the City is undertaking will bear fruit and result in a reduction of the number of people unhoused and the related impacts on our community. We also hope that, combined with the efforts of our compassionate, highly engaged community members, we can work with our local courts and law enforcement partners to enforce reasonable expectations of personal accountability and commitment to safety and community welfare. While the City is certainly trying to step up to its role in solving this problem, I would also encourage you to advocate to your representatives on the County Board of Supervisors and your state and federal representative, as well as your DA, Sherriff, and courts, all of whom combined control the disproportionate share of resources and policy tools to move the needle in the right direction on these issues. As I believe your Councilmember may have expressed, there is significant work the city is doing and has committed people and funds to continue to do, but it is entirely unrealistic to believe that the City of San Luis Obispo alone can, or should, be in the lead on these broad social services and criminal justice policy issues. We can try to treat the symptoms, but we are not the entity funded or given authority to cure the underlying illness. Emergency Bail Schedule a. CA Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 4 i.Sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars. ii.Most misdemeanors are cited and released within 12 hours. Homeless persons and property in public spaces a. (Garcia v. City of Los Angeles (2020 C.D. California)) Upheld (9th Cir, 9/2021): Homeless individuals who had personal property taken or destroyed during cleanups of public spaces brought suit against the city based on claims of illegal seizure under both federal and California law. i.Garcia held that cities cannot summarily seize and destroy personal property left in public spaces, regardless of property dimensions, unless there is an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents and immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime or contraband. b. (Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2012 9th Cir.)): Homeless individuals brought putative civil rights class action against the city, alleging that it confiscated and destroyed their personal possessions in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Individuals sought preliminary injunction against the city. i.Lavan held that, although a diminished expectation of privacy, homeless persons retain the protections of the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable seizures of their personal property on public property, whether that personal property is enclosed within a makeshift shelter or left on sidewalks in violation of municipal ordinance. c. (Santa Cruz Homeless Union v. Bernal (2021 N.D. California)): Individuals living in a homeless encampment in a city park brought suit against the city, seeking injunctive relief for claim that the city’s closure and clearing of the encampment deprived them of their substantive due process rights. i.Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted. ii.Court held that the city’s interest in cleaning and clearing the encampment was outweighed by the Plaintiffs’ interest in their constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that homeless persons have access to shelter and vital services during the pandemic. Liability and injunctions against cities a. “Cities sued for sweeping homeless encampments during the pandemic.” Minneapolis and Denver, October 2020. i.Homeless individuals displaced during homeless encampment sweeps sued the cities, claiming the practice to be unusually cruel and unconstitutionally destructive of property. b. “Lawsuit filed against the sweeps and the city’s ongoing violations of lawsuit settlement.” Denver, October 2020 i.Injunction to stop homeless sweeps during COVID-19 pandemic and afterwards and the seizure and destruction of property without notice. c. “Lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from seizing and discarding homeless people’s belongings.” July 2019. i.Homeless individuals filed suit against city requesting an injunction against the city’s seizure and summary destruction of “bulky items” on city sidewalks, claiming that the city’s cleanup law and encampment enforcement violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. d. “Federal Court issues restraining order against city of Houston in homelessness suit.” August 2017. i.Injunction prevents law enforcement from citing or arresting anyone for using a tent on public property. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:07 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Good morning Chief Scott, I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday with Officer Koznek, and I appreciate your email and constructive comments as well. Your response and potential path to resolution is quite distinguishable from an earlier dismissive response that I received from one of our SLO City Council members. According to her, I am confused and unfairly putting on the City a measure of responsibility for the homeless blight that plagues our downtown core. Needless to say, I do not need to be condescended for raising a legitimate issue and seeking solutions from City leaders on a City problem that is, clearly, not isolated to me and my properties. The council woman’s response to me was neither helpful nor responsive. So, again, I do appreciate your consideration of the issue and time in responding. I can only hope the City’s 2021-2023 plans you outlined will have some impact. In the meantime, I will continue to contact the PD as circumstances warrant and am, obviously, in favor of your proposal to seek a bail enhancement with regard to “John”. Regards, Joanna M. Whitcher Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:  BCC CC: Good afternoon Ms. Whitcher, Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns on this matter. My staff and I certainly share your frustration and hope to work toward a more positive outcome for you and your fellow business owners. By now you should have heard personally from Officer Koznek or soon will, to have a more in-depth conversation on this particular case and how we can help. There are a number of reasons why this person keeps reappearing despite our best efforts, mostly attributed to the department’s lack of ability to arrest. This is a direct reflection of the recently adopted measures by the County Judiciary supporting Zero Bail. Trespassing is not a bailable offense, meaning it is “cite and release” only and the person cannot be admitted or held in jail unless he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and is deemed a danger to himself or others. What this essentially means is that every time we find “John”, the best we can do is remove him from your property and then issue him a misdemeanor citation and leave. The next step in the process is the case goes to court where he is either convicted or not of the offense. Not speaking on this case in particular, but many transient people do not show up for court, which triggers the warrant of arrest process. A misdemeanor warrant is also not bailable and the person remains out of jail and the cycle starts over. We do enforce trespassing, but as you can see the results of this work are hard to see and appear ineffective. Arresting someone is not always the answer, but it is one of the tools we need to promote accountability. I realize this is not the information you wanted to hear and most likely only increases your frustration. As such, I would like to share what our plan and next steps are to help. Our CAT Team is highly skilled and has had successes in handling these more complex situations. We are in communication with the court and are seeking a path which will ultimately allow us to finally arrest and hold “John” on a bail enhancement. With this option, we can hopefully take him off the streets where he can stand trial for the many outstanding violations already logged against him. A bail enhancement is not a tool that is always available to us, but in this case and under these repeat circumstances, I feel confident that these are the right conditions to favor the department being granted this option by the court. I realize you do not wish to continue to call PD every time he is there, but we need to continue to respond and do our best to log and prosecute these occurrences. As I close, I just wanted to provide you some additional information about how the city is working to address this highly complex and sociological issue we are facing. I fully acknowledge your case is different and I think we have an effective plan to make a difference, but here is some additional information on this topic you might find informative. While the County government is primarily responsible for providing public services to unhoused individuals in our city, we recognize that there are things the City can do to reduce homelessness within our City limits. Here’s what we’re currently doing: First, we’re focused on making it easier to build more affordable and workforce housing here. Second, we are working directly with local non-profit partners and the County to reduce homelessness. And third, we have boots on the ground every day connecting unhoused community members with services to help get them back on their feet. Over the next two years, the City expects to do more than ever regarding housing and homelessness. Per our 2021-23 Financial Plan, we will: Add a second social worker to our Community Action Team (CAT) to support public safety and access to critical homeless services. Add new programs to the Housing Element of the General Plan to expand affordable and workforce housing opportunities downtown and in single-family neighborhoods. Enhance the City’s Homeless Team coordination among various key staff from City Departments and develop a strategic plan to guide City actions. Improve environmental protection and water quality with cleanups of creeks, open spaces, public spaces, and parks. Continue to participate in regional collaboration efforts. Seek out grant opportunities to support regional solutions to reduce chronic homelessness. Create a Mobile Crisis Unit to support our chronically unhoused community members and reduce emergency dispatch of paramedics and law enforcement to those who need non- emergency support. Expand our support for funding of non‐profit social service providers that specialize in services to help people transition into housing. Engage community members and stakeholder groups to support housing and homelessness efforts. Clean up creeks and open space areas associated with abandoned personal property and trash. Financially contribute to additional safe parking programs in San Luis Obispo. Financially contribute to coordinated regional efforts to expand transitional housing and shelter resources. Financially contribute to a 25% increase in the number of beds at 40 Prado Homeless Services center and more. Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and I look forward to working for a more positive outcome. Respectfully, Rick Scott Police Chief <image001.png> Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:19 PM To: Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org> Cc: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com> Subject: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John and Tim, I read with interest today the Tribune story concerning the homeless issues plaguing the area around the Elks Lodge and the City's response to same. Honestly, for property owners in the City of SLO, the City's response is disheartening. I recall that ten years ago the City set its priority to solve homeless; now City officials say homeless solutions are "...a top priority... over the next 2 years." From my perspective, the problem has only increased exponentially over the past 10 years and it continues to be an out of control blight throughout our community. Apart from my opinions above, the purpose of this correspondence is to request your help with solutions for homeless issues that I am regularly encountering. I am an owner of premises located in downtown SLO at 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street (commonly known as the Merrill Lynch Buiilding). The building and the parking lot area are private property. We post signage that it is private property and that no trespassing is allowed. We regularly submit PC 602 letters to the City, as directed. The building exterior is illuminated at night. We have service providers at our premises who regularly remove homeless persons and their detritus. I, personally, clean up trash and debris from the premises and have called the police more than once in the last few weeks to remove homeless persons and their encampments from the premises. On each occasion, I have verbally authorized, beyond the 602 letter, the officers/police department to actively enforce no trespassing at the premises. Bottom line, we do NOT consent to have homeless persons on our private property at any time for any purpose. The serial trespasser that I have had removed from premises is called "John" and he seems to be very well known by the police, based on my observations. I know, however, that he is not alone in his trespass; there are definitely others. "John" and others set themselves up in the building alcoves and stairwells, and disrupt points of building ingress/egress for our tenants and their visitors. We are constantly left to deal with trash and human waste, that is literally deposited ON and around the building. It is truly offensive. To say that the situation is getting old is understatement. I am left to wonder why this situation has become my problem almost every day? What do I need to do to keep "John" and other homeless persons off my private property? Clearly, we do not operate a campground. Our premises are not a garbage dump! Our building is not a toilet! Each time the police have responded to my calls they tell me that all they can do is "re-direct" the person and "hopefully" the person will not return. I find this response wholly unacceptable. I do not have the resources to deal with mentally ill homeless persons. This is why I call the police. Yet, what is the point of my spending an hour or more to call the police dispatch number (which is printed in the newspaper as a resource) and wait to engage with the police when they apparently cannot enforce against the trespass? The police seem to have no way to cure or deter the problem beyond their immediate response to my request for dispatch. So, I return to the same circumstance again the next day and the process repeats . . .again and again and again. It is such an inordinate waste of time and energy and resources. Should I be contacting some other City resource for assistance? Based on your CAT experience and expertise, I am seeking your thoughts and solutions for how we deal with this ongoing situation. How do we keep homeless persons from constantly trespassing, damaging and disrupting business on our private property? Is there nothing the City can do to assist with solving this problem? Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. Regards, Joanna Maino Whitcher Joanna M. Whitcher Maino Tel.: 805-543-7411 Cell: 805-441-0038 joannaw@mainoslo.com From:Dietrick, Christine To:Ben@stalwork.com Subject:FW: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 3:25:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png For you too From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 3:22 PM To: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Joanna, I too certainly understand and feel your frustration. Thank you, Chief, for sharing the information below about the efforts the City is taking to try to address these issues, balancing compassion and offers of services to those willing to access them with accountability for criminal or adverse conduct by individuals resistant to help. Joanna, as an attorney, I thought you might also be interested in the legal context increasingly constraining cities, and all government agencies, from effectively managing the types of issues you are experiencing, and understandably resulting in the level of disbelief and frustration you are expressing. We, and I’m sure you, see the impacts of these types of activities broadly expanding on public properties as well. As a matter of background, these issues began to gain focus and momentum in the courts in California back in the early 2000s and culminated with a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (the federal circuit that has jurisdiction over Western states, including California) called Jones v. City of Los Angeles https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-city-of-los- angeles-21. That opinion was issued in 2006, but later vacated because the parties settled. However, the legal landscape around homelessness, and legal restrictions on enforcement measures that are perceived by many to be “criminalizing homelessness” https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=clr emerged with increasing frequency following Jones. The Ninth Circuit case most people have heard the most about recently, and the case that is most often cited by homeless advocates as prohibiting enforcement actions against homeless individuals, is Martin v. City of Boise (2019 9th Cir. [certiorari denied] . That case held that absolute bans on behaviors that are basic human necessities (sitting, lying, and sleeping, etc.) in public spaces violate homeless individuals’ constitutional Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment when there is no reasonable alternative. Martin further held that so long as there is a “greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters,” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless persons for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public” and that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of penalties for an “involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status of being.” Concurrent with and subsequent to the Martin case making its way through the courts, and ultimately being denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been multiple legislative acts, County jail policies, and court rules (some of which are referenced by the Chief) that have rendered local SLOPD enforcement action effectively moot in addressing some of the most repetitive misdemeanor levels of criminal misconduct impacting our community. Where we are not successful in convincing people to accept services, we receive seemingly endless cycles of calls about the conduct of individuals like John, who has 53 outstanding warrants and multiple citations currently pending filing in my office for alcohol and public urination offenses and, yet, has not been held in jail or compelled into services or treatment in order to effectively address the underlying problems resulting in his criminal conduct. There is also a huge body of cases successfully challenging public agencies removal or disposal of property from homeless encampments or stored on public property. Just days ago, on September 2, 2021, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a Federal District Court order prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing and discarding “bulky items” stored by homeless individuals on public property. The full decision is linked here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/02/20- 55522.pdf . Below, I’m including just a brief sampling of some of the cases, rules and reporting that my office regularly follows in order to advise our staff in accordance with constantly evolving law in their efforts to redirect our unhoused neighbors to shelter and services and to address the adverse impacts of these types of activities on our community. In SLO, we implement the holding of Martin and the property seizure cases by ensuring that shelter and services are offered to unhoused individuals and by ensuring that we are providing opportunity for individuals to identify and move personal property prior to cleanups, as well as the City storing any property that is unattended, but that is not clearly refuse or abandoned, prior to any enforcement action on public property. We also assist with CAT Team/social work outreach to indivduals who are removed by private parties from private property in the hope that we can help break the cycle and move people into better situations for themselves and the community as a whole. However, even with those extraordinary efforts by our relatively small field staff (only three of whose job descriptions even specifically include this type of work) we are threatened with litigation virtually every time we undertake a cleanup or encampment removal effort. We often feel that we are isolated from some of the more complicated issues here in SLO, but in this area, that is certainly not the case. For instance, as of this moment, a local advocacy group, California Rural Legal Assistance and several of its local and national legal partners, has served three formal property destruction claims against the City and has alleged numerous other legal violations on behalf of five named clients, ranging from Fourth and Eighth Amendment Constitutional violations, to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to unlawful relocation, citation and arrest related to the City’s efforts to clean and remove encampments from park, creek, open space, and right of way areas. Obviously, this is a complex problem that did not arise overnight. Likewise, the solutions won’t emerge overnight. The courts are increasingly making it clear in their recent decisions that they are going to force social, policy and political solutions to these complex problems, rather than continuing to deal with them on a fact-bound, case by case basis in the courts. Those harder solutions will take all of us working together unrelentingly. We appreciate you reaching out to us and trying to figure out how to be part of the solution. We are hopeful that the many efforts the City is undertaking will bear fruit and result in a reduction of the number of people unhoused and the related impacts on our community. We also hope that, combined with the efforts of our compassionate, highly engaged community members, we can work with our local courts and law enforcement partners to enforce reasonable expectations of personal accountability and commitment to safety and community welfare. While the City is certainly trying to step up to its role in solving this problem, I would also encourage you to advocate to your representatives on the County Board of Supervisors and your state and federal representative, as well as your DA, Sherriff, and courts, all of whom combined control the disproportionate share of resources and policy tools to move the needle in the right direction on these issues. As I believe your Councilmember may have expressed, there is significant work the city is doing and has committed people and funds to continue to do, but it is entirely unrealistic to believe that the City of San Luis Obispo alone can, or should, be in the lead on these broad social services and criminal justice policy issues. We can try to treat the symptoms, but we are not the entity funded or given authority to cure the underlying illness. Emergency Bail Schedule a. CA Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 4 i.Sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars. ii.Most misdemeanors are cited and released within 12 hours. Homeless persons and property in public spaces a. (Garcia v. City of Los Angeles (2020 C.D. California)) Upheld (9th Cir, 9/2021): Homeless individuals who had personal property taken or destroyed during cleanups of public spaces brought suit against the city based on claims of illegal seizure under both federal and California law. i.Garcia held that cities cannot summarily seize and destroy personal property left in public spaces, regardless of property dimensions, unless there is an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents and immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime or contraband. b. (Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2012 9th Cir.)): Homeless individuals brought putative civil rights class action against the city, alleging that it confiscated and destroyed their personal possessions in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Individuals sought preliminary injunction against the city. i.Lavan held that, although a diminished expectation of privacy, homeless persons retain the protections of the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable seizures of their personal property on public property, whether that personal property is enclosed within a makeshift shelter or left on sidewalks in violation of municipal ordinance. c. (Santa Cruz Homeless Union v. Bernal (2021 N.D. California)): Individuals living in a homeless encampment in a city park brought suit against the city, seeking injunctive relief for claim that the city’s closure and clearing of the encampment deprived them of their substantive due process rights. i.Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted. ii.Court held that the city’s interest in cleaning and clearing the encampment was outweighed by the Plaintiffs’ interest in their constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that homeless persons have access to shelter and vital services during the pandemic. Liability and injunctions against cities a. “Cities sued for sweeping homeless encampments during the pandemic.” Minneapolis and Denver, October 2020. i.Homeless individuals displaced during homeless encampment sweeps sued the cities, claiming the practice to be unusually cruel and unconstitutionally destructive of property. b. “Lawsuit filed against the sweeps and the city’s ongoing violations of lawsuit settlement.” Denver, October 2020 i.Injunction to stop homeless sweeps during COVID-19 pandemic and afterwards and the seizure and destruction of property without notice. c. “Lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from seizing and discarding homeless people’s belongings.” July 2019. i.Homeless individuals filed suit against city requesting an injunction against the city’s seizure and summary destruction of “bulky items” on city sidewalks, claiming that the city’s cleanup law and encampment enforcement violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. d. “Federal Court issues restraining order against city of Houston in homelessness suit.” August 2017. i.Injunction prevents law enforcement from citing or arresting anyone for using a tent on public property. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:07 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Good morning Chief Scott, I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday with Officer Koznek, and I appreciate your email and constructive comments as well. Your response and potential path to resolution is quite distinguishable from an earlier dismissive response that I received from one of our SLO City Council members. According to her, I am confused and unfairly putting on the City a measure of responsibility for the homeless blight that plagues our downtown core. Needless to say, I do not need to be condescended for raising a legitimate issue and seeking solutions from City leaders on a City problem that is, clearly, not isolated to me and my properties. The council woman’s response to me was neither helpful nor responsive. So, again, I do appreciate your consideration of the issue and time in responding. I can only hope the City’s 2021-2023 plans you outlined will have some impact. In the meantime, I will continue to contact the PD as circumstances warrant and am, obviously, in favor of your proposal to seek a bail enhancement with regard to “John”. Regards, Joanna M. Whitcher Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:  BCC CC: Good afternoon Ms. Whitcher, Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns on this matter. My staff and I certainly share your frustration and hope to work toward a more positive outcome for you and your fellow business owners. By now you should have heard personally from Officer Koznek or soon will, to have a more in-depth conversation on this particular case and how we can help. There are a number of reasons why this person keeps reappearing despite our best efforts, mostly attributed to the department’s lack of ability to arrest. This is a direct reflection of the recently adopted measures by the County Judiciary supporting Zero Bail. Trespassing is not a bailable offense, meaning it is “cite and release” only and the person cannot be admitted or held in jail unless he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and is deemed a danger to himself or others. What this essentially means is that every time we find “John”, the best we can do is remove him from your property and then issue him a misdemeanor citation and leave. The next step in the process is the case goes to court where he is either convicted or not of the offense. Not speaking on this case in particular, but many transient people do not show up for court, which triggers the warrant of arrest process. A misdemeanor warrant is also not bailable and the person remains out of jail and the cycle starts over. We do enforce trespassing, but as you can see the results of this work are hard to see and appear ineffective. Arresting someone is not always the answer, but it is one of the tools we need to promote accountability. I realize this is not the information you wanted to hear and most likely only increases your frustration. As such, I would like to share what our plan and next steps are to help. Our CAT Team is highly skilled and has had successes in handling these more complex situations. We are in communication with the court and are seeking a path which will ultimately allow us to finally arrest and hold “John” on a bail enhancement. With this option, we can hopefully take him off the streets where he can stand trial for the many outstanding violations already logged against him. A bail enhancement is not a tool that is always available to us, but in this case and under these repeat circumstances, I feel confident that these are the right conditions to favor the department being granted this option by the court. I realize you do not wish to continue to call PD every time he is there, but we need to continue to respond and do our best to log and prosecute these occurrences. As I close, I just wanted to provide you some additional information about how the city is working to address this highly complex and sociological issue we are facing. I fully acknowledge your case is different and I think we have an effective plan to make a difference, but here is some additional information on this topic you might find informative. While the County government is primarily responsible for providing public services to unhoused individuals in our city, we recognize that there are things the City can do to reduce homelessness within our City limits. Here’s what we’re currently doing: First, we’re focused on making it easier to build more affordable and workforce housing here. Second, we are working directly with local non-profit partners and the County to reduce homelessness. And third, we have boots on the ground every day connecting unhoused community members with services to help get them back on their feet. Over the next two years, the City expects to do more than ever regarding housing and homelessness. Per our 2021-23 Financial Plan, we will: Add a second social worker to our Community Action Team (CAT) to support public safety and access to critical homeless services. Add new programs to the Housing Element of the General Plan to expand affordable and workforce housing opportunities downtown and in single-family neighborhoods. Enhance the City’s Homeless Team coordination among various key staff from City Departments and develop a strategic plan to guide City actions. Improve environmental protection and water quality with cleanups of creeks, open spaces, public spaces, and parks. Continue to participate in regional collaboration efforts. Seek out grant opportunities to support regional solutions to reduce chronic homelessness. Create a Mobile Crisis Unit to support our chronically unhoused community members and reduce emergency dispatch of paramedics and law enforcement to those who need non- emergency support. Expand our support for funding of non‐profit social service providers that specialize in services to help people transition into housing. Engage community members and stakeholder groups to support housing and homelessness efforts. Clean up creeks and open space areas associated with abandoned personal property and trash. Financially contribute to additional safe parking programs in San Luis Obispo. Financially contribute to coordinated regional efforts to expand transitional housing and shelter resources. Financially contribute to a 25% increase in the number of beds at 40 Prado Homeless Services center and more. Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and I look forward to working for a more positive outcome. Respectfully, Rick Scott Police Chief <image001.png> Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:19 PM To: Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org> Cc: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com> Subject: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John and Tim, I read with interest today the Tribune story concerning the homeless issues plaguing the area around the Elks Lodge and the City's response to same. Honestly, for property owners in the City of SLO, the City's response is disheartening. I recall that ten years ago the City set its priority to solve homeless; now City officials say homeless solutions are "...a top priority... over the next 2 years." From my perspective, the problem has only increased exponentially over the past 10 years and it continues to be an out of control blight throughout our community. Apart from my opinions above, the purpose of this correspondence is to request your help with solutions for homeless issues that I am regularly encountering. I am an owner of premises located in downtown SLO at 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street (commonly known as the Merrill Lynch Buiilding). The building and the parking lot area are private property. We post signage that it is private property and that no trespassing is allowed. We regularly submit PC 602 letters to the City, as directed. The building exterior is illuminated at night. We have service providers at our premises who regularly remove homeless persons and their detritus. I, personally, clean up trash and debris from the premises and have called the police more than once in the last few weeks to remove homeless persons and their encampments from the premises. On each occasion, I have verbally authorized, beyond the 602 letter, the officers/police department to actively enforce no trespassing at the premises. Bottom line, we do NOT consent to have homeless persons on our private property at any time for any purpose. The serial trespasser that I have had removed from premises is called "John" and he seems to be very well known by the police, based on my observations. I know, however, that he is not alone in his trespass; there are definitely others. "John" and others set themselves up in the building alcoves and stairwells, and disrupt points of building ingress/egress for our tenants and their visitors. We are constantly left to deal with trash and human waste, that is literally deposited ON and around the building. It is truly offensive. To say that the situation is getting old is understatement. I am left to wonder why this situation has become my problem almost every day? What do I need to do to keep "John" and other homeless persons off my private property? Clearly, we do not operate a campground. Our premises are not a garbage dump! Our building is not a toilet! Each time the police have responded to my calls they tell me that all they can do is "re-direct" the person and "hopefully" the person will not return. I find this response wholly unacceptable. I do not have the resources to deal with mentally ill homeless persons. This is why I call the police. Yet, what is the point of my spending an hour or more to call the police dispatch number (which is printed in the newspaper as a resource) and wait to engage with the police when they apparently cannot enforce against the trespass? The police seem to have no way to cure or deter the problem beyond their immediate response to my request for dispatch. So, I return to the same circumstance again the next day and the process repeats . . .again and again and again. It is such an inordinate waste of time and energy and resources. Should I be contacting some other City resource for assistance? Based on your CAT experience and expertise, I am seeking your thoughts and solutions for how we deal with this ongoing situation. How do we keep homeless persons from constantly trespassing, damaging and disrupting business on our private property? Is there nothing the City can do to assist with solving this problem? Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. Regards, Joanna Maino Whitcher Joanna M. Whitcher Maino Tel.: 805-543-7411 Cell: 805-441-0038 joannaw@mainoslo.com From:Joanna Maino Whitcher To:Dietrick, Christine Cc:Scott, Rick; Goren, Rebecca; Klevins, John; Rico, Christopher; Koznek, Tim; Johnson, Derek; Hermann, Greg; Stanwyck, Shelly; Szentesi, Whitney; Tom Maino; Mikie Maino; E-mail Council Website Subject:Re: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 5:33:54 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Thanks Christine for reaching out. I am pretty familiar with much of the case law you have cited and will take the opportunity this weekend to review the cases with which I am not familiar. I do recognize the complexity of the unhoused situation, and I certainly understand how legal and jurisdictional issues can tie the hands of even those who are best intentioned. A prime point of distinction that I note between our circumstances and the legal authority you cite is that our property is private. The acts by “John” and other homeless persons that I am addressing are occurring on our private property, and we do not consent to any homeless activity on our private property. I haven’t found any case law that affords protections to the homeless for acts they undertake on private property. I’d be interested to know if you have seen any authority on this. Of course, whether the property is public or private seems to currently be of no matter given the zero bail imposed by our judiciary and the limitations such policy imposes on our local law enforcement. By the way, I do not live in the city and, unfortunately, cannot vote for city council. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Joanna Joanna M. Whitcher Maino Joannaw@mainoslo.com Tel: 805-543-7411 Cell: 805-441-0038 Sent from my iPad On Sep 10, 2021, at 3:21 PM, Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> wrote:  Joanna, I too certainly understand and feel your frustration. Thank you, Chief, for sharing the information below about the efforts the City is taking to try to address these issues, balancing compassion and offers of services to those willing to access them with accountability for criminal or adverse conduct by individuals resistant to help. Joanna, as an attorney, I thought you might also be interested in the legal context increasingly constraining cities, and all government agencies, from effectively managing the types of issues you are experiencing, and understandably resulting in the level of disbelief and frustration you are expressing. We, and I’m sure you, see the impacts of these types of activities broadly expanding on public properties as well. As a matter of background, these issues began to gain focus and momentum in the courts in California back in the early 2000s and culminated with a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (the federal circuit that has jurisdiction over Western states, including California) called Jones v. City of Los Angeles https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-city-of-los-angeles-21. That opinion was issued in 2006, but later vacated because the parties settled. However, the legal landscape around homelessness, and legal restrictions on enforcement measures that are perceived by many to be “criminalizing homelessness” https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=clr emerged with increasing frequency following Jones. The Ninth Circuit case most people have heard the most about recently, and the case that is most often cited by homeless advocates as prohibiting enforcement actions against homeless individuals, is Martin v. City of Boise (2019 9th Cir. [certiorari denied] . That case held that absolute bans on behaviors that are basic human necessities (sitting, lying, and sleeping, etc.) in public spaces violate homeless individuals’ constitutional Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment when there is no reasonable alternative. Martin further held that so long as there is a “greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters,” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless persons for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public” and that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of penalties for an “involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status of being.” Concurrent with and subsequent to the Martin case making its way through the courts, and ultimately being denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been multiple legislative acts, County jail policies, and court rules (some of which are referenced by the Chief) that have rendered local SLOPD enforcement action effectively moot in addressing some of the most repetitive misdemeanor levels of criminal misconduct impacting our community. Where we are not successful in convincing people to accept services, we receive seemingly endless cycles of calls about the conduct of individuals like John, who has 53 outstanding warrants and multiple citations currently pending filing in my office for alcohol and public urination offenses and, yet, has not been held in jail or compelled into services or treatment in order to effectively address the underlying problems resulting in his criminal conduct. There is also a huge body of cases successfully challenging public agencies removal or disposal of property from homeless encampments or stored on public property. Just days ago, on September 2, 2021, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a Federal District Court order prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing and discarding “bulky items” stored by homeless individuals on public property. The full decision is linked here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/02/20-55522.pdf . Below, I’m including just a brief sampling of some of the cases, rules and reporting that my office regularly follows in order to advise our staff in accordance with constantly evolving law in their efforts to redirect our unhoused neighbors to shelter and services and to address the adverse impacts of these types of activities on our community. In SLO, we implement the holding of Martin and the property seizure cases by ensuring that shelter and services are offered to unhoused individuals and by ensuring that we are providing opportunity for individuals to identify and move personal property prior to cleanups, as well as the City storing any property that is unattended, but that is not clearly refuse or abandoned, prior to any enforcement action on public property. We also assist with CAT Team/social work outreach to indivduals who are removed by private parties from private property in the hope that we can help break the cycle and move people into better situations for themselves and the community as a whole. However, even with those extraordinary efforts by our relatively small field staff (only three of whose job descriptions even specifically include this type of work) we are threatened with litigation virtually every time we undertake a cleanup or encampment removal effort. We often feel that we are isolated from some of the more complicated issues here in SLO, but in this area, that is certainly not the case. For instance, as of this moment, a local advocacy group, California Rural Legal Assistance and several of its local and national legal partners, has served three formal property destruction claims against the City and has alleged numerous other legal violations on behalf of five named clients, ranging from Fourth and Eighth Amendment Constitutional violations, to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to unlawful relocation, citation and arrest related to the City’s efforts to clean and remove encampments from park, creek, open space, and right of way areas. Obviously, this is a complex problem that did not arise overnight. Likewise, the solutions won’t emerge overnight. The courts are increasingly making it clear in their recent decisions that they are going to force social, policy and political solutions to these complex problems, rather than continuing to deal with them on a fact-bound, case by case basis in the courts. Those harder solutions will take all of us working together unrelentingly. We appreciate you reaching out to us and trying to figure out how to be part of the solution. We are hopeful that the many efforts the City is undertaking will bear fruit and result in a reduction of the number of people unhoused and the related impacts on our community. We also hope that, combined with the efforts of our compassionate, highly engaged community members, we can work with our local courts and law enforcement partners to enforce reasonable expectations of personal accountability and commitment to safety and community welfare. While the City is certainly trying to step up to its role in solving this problem, I would also encourage you to advocate to your representatives on the County Board of Supervisors and your state and federal representative, as well as your DA, Sherriff, and courts, all of whom combined control the disproportionate share of resources and policy tools to move the needle in the right direction on these issues. As I believe your Councilmember may have expressed, there is significant work the city is doing and has committed people and funds to continue to do, but it is entirely unrealistic to believe that the City of San Luis Obispo alone can, or should, be in the lead on these broad social services and criminal justice policy issues. We can try to treat the symptoms, but we are not the entity funded or given authority to cure the underlying illness. Emergency Bail Schedule <!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->CA Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 4 <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-->Sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars. <!--[if !supportLists]--> ii.<!--[endif]-->Most misdemeanors are cited and released within 12 hours. Homeless persons and property in public spaces <!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->(Garcia v. City of Los Angeles (2020 C.D. California)) Upheld (9th Cir, 9/2021): Homeless individuals who had personal property taken or destroyed during cleanups of public spaces brought suit against the city based on claims of illegal seizure under both federal and California law. <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-->Garcia held that cities cannot summarily seize and destroy personal property left in public spaces, regardless of property dimensions, unless there is an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents and immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime or contraband. <!--[if !supportLists]-->b. <!--[endif]-->(Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2012 9th Cir.)): Homeless individuals brought putative civil rights class action against the city, alleging that it confiscated and destroyed their personal possessions in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Individuals sought preliminary injunction against the city. <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-->Lavan held that, although a diminished expectation of privacy, homeless persons retain the protections of the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable seizures of their personal property on public property, whether that personal property is enclosed within a makeshift shelter or left on sidewalks in violation of municipal ordinance. <!--[if !supportLists]-->c. <!--[endif]-->(Santa Cruz Homeless Union v. Bernal (2021 N.D. California)): Individuals living in a homeless encampment in a city park brought suit against the city, seeking injunctive relief for claim that the city’s closure and clearing of the encampment deprived them of their substantive due process rights. <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-- >Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted. <!--[if !supportLists]--> ii.<!--[endif]-->Court held that the city’s interest in cleaning and clearing the encampment was outweighed by the Plaintiffs’ interest in their constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that homeless persons have access to shelter and vital services during the pandemic. Liability and injunctions against cities <!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->“Cities sued for sweeping homeless encampments during the pandemic.” Minneapolis and Denver, October 2020. <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-->Homeless individuals displaced during homeless encampment sweeps sued the cities, claiming the practice to be unusually cruel and unconstitutionally destructive of property. <!--[if !supportLists]-->b. <!--[endif]-->“Lawsuit filed against the sweeps and the city’s ongoing violations of lawsuit settlement.” Denver, October 2020 <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-->Injunction to stop homeless sweeps during COVID-19 pandemic and afterwards and the seizure and destruction of property without notice. <!--[if !supportLists]-->c. <!--[endif]-->“Lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from seizing and discarding homeless people’s belongings.” July 2019. <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-->Homeless individuals filed suit against city requesting an injunction against the city’s seizure and summary destruction of “bulky items” on city sidewalks, claiming that the city’s cleanup law and encampment enforcement violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. <!--[if !supportLists]-->d. <!--[endif]-->“Federal Court issues restraining order against city of Houston in homelessness suit.” August 2017. <!--[if !supportLists]--> i.<!--[endif]-- >Injunction prevents law enforcement from citing or arresting anyone for using a tent on public property. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney <image001.png> City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:07 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Good morning Chief Scott, I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday with Officer Koznek, and I appreciate your email and constructive comments as well. Your response and potential path to resolution is quite distinguishable from an earlier dismissive response that I received from one of our SLO City Council members. According to her, I am confused and unfairly putting on the City a measure of responsibility for the homeless blight that plagues our downtown core. Needless to say, I do not need to be condescended for raising a legitimate issue and seeking solutions from City leaders on a City problem that is, clearly, not isolated to me and my properties. The council woman’s response to me was neither helpful nor responsive. So, again, I do appreciate your consideration of the issue and time in responding. I can only hope the City’s 2021-2023 plans you outlined will have some impact. In the meantime, I will continue to contact the PD as circumstances warrant and am, obviously, in favor of your proposal to seek a bail enhancement with regard to “John”. Regards, Joanna M. Whitcher Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:  BCC CC: Good afternoon Ms. Whitcher, Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns on this matter. My staff and I certainly share your frustration and hope to work toward a more positive outcome for you and your fellow business owners. By now you should have heard personally from Officer Koznek or soon will, to have a more in-depth conversation on this particular case and how we can help. There are a number of reasons why this person keeps reappearing despite our best efforts, mostly attributed to the department’s lack of ability to arrest. This is a direct reflection of the recently adopted measures by the County Judiciary supporting Zero Bail. Trespassing is not a bailable offense, meaning it is “cite and release” only and the person cannot be admitted or held in jail unless he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and is deemed a danger to himself or others. What this essentially means is that every time we find “John”, the best we can do is remove him from your property and then issue him a misdemeanor citation and leave. The next step in the process is the case goes to court where he is either convicted or not of the offense. Not speaking on this case in particular, but many transient people do not show up for court, which triggers the warrant of arrest process. A misdemeanor warrant is also not bailable and the person remains out of jail and the cycle starts over. We do enforce trespassing, but as you can see the results of this work are hard to see and appear ineffective. Arresting someone is not always the answer, but it is one of the tools we need to promote accountability. I realize this is not the information you wanted to hear and most likely only increases your frustration. As such, I would like to share what our plan and next steps are to help. Our CAT Team is highly skilled and has had successes in handling these more complex situations. We are in communication with the court and are seeking a path which will ultimately allow us to finally arrest and hold “John” on a bail enhancement. With this option, we can hopefully take him off the streets where he can stand trial for the many outstanding violations already logged against him. A bail enhancement is not a tool that is always available to us, but in this case and under these repeat circumstances, I feel confident that these are the right conditions to favor the department being granted this option by the court. I realize you do not wish to continue to call PD every time he is there, but we need to continue to respond and do our best to log and prosecute these occurrences. As I close, I just wanted to provide you some additional information about how the city is working to address this highly complex and sociological issue we are facing. I fully acknowledge your case is different and I think we have an effective plan to make a difference, but here is some additional information on this topic you might find informative. While the County government is primarily responsible for providing public services to unhoused individuals in our city, we recognize that there are things the City can do to reduce homelessness within our City limits. Here’s what we’re currently doing: First, we’re focused on making it easier to build more affordable and workforce housing here. Second, we are working directly with local non-profit partners and the County to reduce homelessness. And third, we have boots on the ground every day connecting unhoused community members with services to help get them back on their feet. Over the next two years, the City expects to do more than ever regarding housing and homelessness. Per our 2021-23 Financial Plan, we will: Add a second social worker to our Community Action Team (CAT) to support public safety and access to critical homeless services. Add new programs to the Housing Element of the General Plan to expand affordable and workforce housing opportunities downtown and in single-family neighborhoods. Enhance the City’s Homeless Team coordination among various key staff from City Departments and develop a strategic plan to guide City actions. Improve environmental protection and water quality with cleanups of creeks, open spaces, public spaces, and parks. Continue to participate in regional collaboration efforts. Seek out grant opportunities to support regional solutions to reduce chronic homelessness. Create a Mobile Crisis Unit to support our chronically unhoused community members and reduce emergency dispatch of paramedics and law enforcement to those who need non-emergency support. Expand our support for funding of non‐profit social service providers that specialize in services to help people transition into housing. Engage community members and stakeholder groups to support housing and homelessness efforts. Clean up creeks and open space areas associated with abandoned personal property and trash. Financially contribute to additional safe parking programs in San Luis Obispo. Financially contribute to coordinated regional efforts to expand transitional housing and shelter resources. Financially contribute to a 25% increase in the number of beds at 40 Prado Homeless Services center and more. Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and I look forward to working for a more positive outcome. Respectfully, Rick Scott Police Chief <image001.png> Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:19 PM To: Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org> Cc: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com> Subject: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John and Tim, I read with interest today the Tribune story concerning the homeless issues plaguing the area around the Elks Lodge and the City's response to same. Honestly, for property owners in the City of SLO, the City's response is disheartening. I recall that ten years ago the City set its priority to solve homeless; now City officials say homeless solutions are "...a top priority... over the next 2 years." From my perspective, the problem has only increased exponentially over the past 10 years and it continues to be an out of control blight throughout our community. Apart from my opinions above, the purpose of this correspondence is to request your help with solutions for homeless issues that I am regularly encountering. I am an owner of premises located in downtown SLO at 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street (commonly known as the Merrill Lynch Buiilding). The building and the parking lot area are private property. We post signage that it is private property and that no trespassing is allowed. We regularly submit PC 602 letters to the City, as directed. The building exterior is illuminated at night. We have service providers at our premises who regularly remove homeless persons and their detritus. I, personally, clean up trash and debris from the premises and have called the police more than once in the last few weeks to remove homeless persons and their encampments from the premises. On each occasion, I have verbally authorized, beyond the 602 letter, the officers/police department to actively enforce no trespassing at the premises. Bottom line, we do NOT consent to have homeless persons on our private property at any time for any purpose. The serial trespasser that I have had removed from premises is called "John" and he seems to be very well known by the police, based on my observations. I know, however, that he is not alone in his trespass; there are definitely others. "John" and others set themselves up in the building alcoves and stairwells, and disrupt points of building ingress/egress for our tenants and their visitors. We are constantly left to deal with trash and human waste, that is literally deposited ON and around the building. It is truly offensive. To say that the situation is getting old is understatement. I am left to wonder why this situation has become my problem almost every day? What do I need to do to keep "John" and other homeless persons off my private property? Clearly, we do not operate a campground. Our premises are not a garbage dump! Our building is not a toilet! Each time the police have responded to my calls they tell me that all they can do is "re- direct" the person and "hopefully" the person will not return. I find this response wholly unacceptable. I do not have the resources to deal with mentally ill homeless persons. This is why I call the police. Yet, what is the point of my spending an hour or more to call the police dispatch number (which is printed in the newspaper as a resource) and wait to engage with the police when they apparently cannot enforce against the trespass? The police seem to have no way to cure or deter the problem beyond their immediate response to my request for dispatch. So, I return to the same circumstance again the next day and the process repeats . . .again and again and again. It is such an inordinate waste of time and energy and resources. Should I be contacting some other City resource for assistance? Based on your CAT experience and expertise, I am seeking your thoughts and solutions for how we deal with this ongoing situation. How do we keep homeless persons from constantly trespassing, damaging and disrupting business on our private property? Is there nothing the City can do to assist with solving this problem? Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. Regards, Joanna Maino Whitcher Joanna M. Whitcher Maino Tel.: 805-543-7411 Cell: 805-441-0038 joannaw@mainoslo.com From:Stewart, Erica A To:Dietrick, Christine; Joanna Maino Whitcher; Scott, Rick Cc:Goren, Rebecca; Klevins, John; Rico, Christopher; Koznek, Tim; Johnson, Derek; Hermann, Greg; Stanwyck, Shelly; Szentesi, Whitney; Tom Maino; Mikie Maino Subject:RE: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Date:Sunday, September 12, 2021 4:27:22 PM Attachments:image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png Christine & Chief Scott, Thank you for sharing so much information regarding the city’s efforts and challenges to reduce homelessness. I appreciate all that staff is doing to make an effort and believe all of the city’s current and upcoming efforts will make a difference to many in our community. Joanna, Thank you for reaching out to the city to share your frustrations and concerns. My fellow councilmembers and I are committed to reducing homelessness and increasing housing. As Chief Scott shared, we have focused money in the 2021-2023 to provide more resources and additional programs to reduce homelessness. We will continue to maneuver through the legal challenges and human needs to help those who are unhoused, business owners, and property owners. Best wishes, Erica Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 3:22 PM To: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Joanna, I too certainly understand and feel your frustration. Thank you, Chief, for sharing the information below about the efforts the City is taking to try to address these issues, balancing compassion and offers of services to those willing to access them with accountability for criminal or adverse conduct by individuals resistant to help. Joanna, as an attorney, I thought you might also be interested in the legal context increasingly constraining cities, and all government agencies, from effectively managing the types of issues you are experiencing, and understandably resulting in the level of disbelief and frustration you are expressing. We, and I’m sure you, see the impacts of these types of activities broadly expanding on public properties as well. As a matter of background, these issues began to gain focus and momentum in the courts in California back in the early 2000s and culminated with a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (the federal circuit that has jurisdiction over Western states, including California) called Jones v. City of Los Angeles https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-city-of-los- angeles-21. That opinion was issued in 2006, but later vacated because the parties settled. However, the legal landscape around homelessness, and legal restrictions on enforcement measures that are perceived by many to be “criminalizing homelessness” https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=clr emerged with increasing frequency following Jones. The Ninth Circuit case most people have heard the most about recently, and the case that is most often cited by homeless advocates as prohibiting enforcement actions against homeless individuals, is Martin v. City of Boise (2019 9th Cir. [certiorari denied] . That case held that absolute bans on behaviors that are basic human necessities (sitting, lying, and sleeping, etc.) in public spaces violate homeless individuals’ constitutional Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment when there is no reasonable alternative. Martin further held that so long as there is a “greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters,” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless persons for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public” and that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of penalties for an “involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status of being.” Concurrent with and subsequent to the Martin case making its way through the courts, and ultimately being denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been multiple legislative acts, County jail policies, and court rules (some of which are referenced by the Chief) that have rendered local SLOPD enforcement action effectively moot in addressing some of the most repetitive misdemeanor levels of criminal misconduct impacting our community. Where we are not successful in convincing people to accept services, we receive seemingly endless cycles of calls about the conduct of individuals like John, who has 53 outstanding warrants and multiple citations currently pending filing in my office for alcohol and public urination offenses and, yet, has not been held in jail or compelled into services or treatment in order to effectively address the underlying problems resulting in his criminal conduct. There is also a huge body of cases successfully challenging public agencies removal or disposal of property from homeless encampments or stored on public property. Just days ago, on September 2, 2021, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a Federal District Court order prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing and discarding “bulky items” stored by homeless individuals on public property. The full decision is linked here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/02/20- 55522.pdf . Below, I’m including just a brief sampling of some of the cases, rules and reporting that my office regularly follows in order to advise our staff in accordance with constantly evolving law in their efforts to redirect our unhoused neighbors to shelter and services and to address the adverse impacts of these types of activities on our community. In SLO, we implement the holding of Martin and the property seizure cases by ensuring that shelter and services are offered to unhoused individuals and by ensuring that we are providing opportunity for individuals to identify and move personal property prior to cleanups, as well as the City storing any property that is unattended, but that is not clearly refuse or abandoned, prior to any enforcement action on public property. We also assist with CAT Team/social work outreach to indivduals who are removed by private parties from private property in the hope that we can help break the cycle and move people into better situations for themselves and the community as a whole. However, even with those extraordinary efforts by our relatively small field staff (only three of whose job descriptions even specifically include this type of work) we are threatened with litigation virtually every time we undertake a cleanup or encampment removal effort. We often feel that we are isolated from some of the more complicated issues here in SLO, but in this area, that is certainly not the case. For instance, as of this moment, a local advocacy group, California Rural Legal Assistance and several of its local and national legal partners, has served three formal property destruction claims against the City and has alleged numerous other legal violations on behalf of five named clients, ranging from Fourth and Eighth Amendment Constitutional violations, to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to unlawful relocation, citation and arrest related to the City’s efforts to clean and remove encampments from park, creek, open space, and right of way areas. Obviously, this is a complex problem that did not arise overnight. Likewise, the solutions won’t emerge overnight. The courts are increasingly making it clear in their recent decisions that they are going to force social, policy and political solutions to these complex problems, rather than continuing to deal with them on a fact-bound, case by case basis in the courts. Those harder solutions will take all of us working together unrelentingly. We appreciate you reaching out to us and trying to figure out how to be part of the solution. We are hopeful that the many efforts the City is undertaking will bear fruit and result in a reduction of the number of people unhoused and the related impacts on our community. We also hope that, combined with the efforts of our compassionate, highly engaged community members, we can work with our local courts and law enforcement partners to enforce reasonable expectations of personal accountability and commitment to safety and community welfare. While the City is certainly trying to step up to its role in solving this problem, I would also encourage you to advocate to your representatives on the County Board of Supervisors and your state and federal representative, as well as your DA, Sherriff, and courts, all of whom combined control the disproportionate share of resources and policy tools to move the needle in the right direction on these issues. As I believe your Councilmember may have expressed, there is significant work the city is doing and has committed people and funds to continue to do, but it is entirely unrealistic to believe that the City of San Luis Obispo alone can, or should, be in the lead on these broad social services and criminal justice policy issues. We can try to treat the symptoms, but we are not the entity funded or given authority to cure the underlying illness. Emergency Bail Schedule a. CA Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 4 i.Sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars. ii.Most misdemeanors are cited and released within 12 hours. Homeless persons and property in public spaces a. (Garcia v. City of Los Angeles (2020 C.D. California)) Upheld (9th Cir, 9/2021): Homeless individuals who had personal property taken or destroyed during cleanups of public spaces brought suit against the city based on claims of illegal seizure under both federal and California law. i.Garcia held that cities cannot summarily seize and destroy personal property left in public spaces, regardless of property dimensions, unless there is an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents and immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime or contraband. b. (Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2012 9th Cir.)): Homeless individuals brought putative civil rights class action against the city, alleging that it confiscated and destroyed their personal possessions in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Individuals sought preliminary injunction against the city. i.Lavan held that, although a diminished expectation of privacy, homeless persons retain the protections of the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable seizures of their personal property on public property, whether that personal property is enclosed within a makeshift shelter or left on sidewalks in violation of municipal ordinance. c. (Santa Cruz Homeless Union v. Bernal (2021 N.D. California)): Individuals living in a homeless encampment in a city park brought suit against the city, seeking injunctive relief for claim that the city’s closure and clearing of the encampment deprived them of their substantive due process rights. i.Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted. ii.Court held that the city’s interest in cleaning and clearing the encampment was outweighed by the Plaintiffs’ interest in their constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that homeless persons have access to shelter and vital services during the pandemic. Liability and injunctions against cities a. “Cities sued for sweeping homeless encampments during the pandemic.” Minneapolis and Denver, October 2020. i.Homeless individuals displaced during homeless encampment sweeps sued the cities, claiming the practice to be unusually cruel and unconstitutionally destructive of property. b. “Lawsuit filed against the sweeps and the city’s ongoing violations of lawsuit settlement.” Denver, October 2020 i.Injunction to stop homeless sweeps during COVID-19 pandemic and afterwards and the seizure and destruction of property without notice. c. “Lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from seizing and discarding homeless people’s belongings.” July 2019. i.Homeless individuals filed suit against city requesting an injunction against the city’s seizure and summary destruction of “bulky items” on city sidewalks, claiming that the city’s cleanup law and encampment enforcement violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. d. “Federal Court issues restraining order against city of Houston in homelessness suit.” August 2017. i.Injunction prevents law enforcement from citing or arresting anyone for using a tent on public property. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:07 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Goren, Rebecca <rgoren@slocity.org>; Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Rico, Christopher <crico@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whitney <wszentes@slocity.org>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues Good morning Chief Scott, I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday with Officer Koznek, and I appreciate your email and constructive comments as well. Your response and potential path to resolution is quite distinguishable from an earlier dismissive response that I received from one of our SLO City Council members. According to her, I am confused and unfairly putting on the City a measure of responsibility for the homeless blight that plagues our downtown core. Needless to say, I do not need to be condescended for raising a legitimate issue and seeking solutions from City leaders on a City problem that is, clearly, not isolated to me and my properties. The council woman’s response to me was neither helpful nor responsive. So, again, I do appreciate your consideration of the issue and time in responding. I can only hope the City’s 2021-2023 plans you outlined will have some impact. In the meantime, I will continue to contact the PD as circumstances warrant and am, obviously, in favor of your proposal to seek a bail enhancement with regard to “John”. Regards, Joanna M. Whitcher Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:  BCC CC: Good afternoon Ms. Whitcher, Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns on this matter. My staff and I certainly share your frustration and hope to work toward a more positive outcome for you and your fellow business owners. By now you should have heard personally from Officer Koznek or soon will, to have a more in-depth conversation on this particular case and how we can help. There are a number of reasons why this person keeps reappearing despite our best efforts, mostly attributed to the department’s lack of ability to arrest. This is a direct reflection of the recently adopted measures by the County Judiciary supporting Zero Bail. Trespassing is not a bailable offense, meaning it is “cite and release” only and the person cannot be admitted or held in jail unless he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and is deemed a danger to himself or others. What this essentially means is that every time we find “John”, the best we can do is remove him from your property and then issue him a misdemeanor citation and leave. The next step in the process is the case goes to court where he is either convicted or not of the offense. Not speaking on this case in particular, but many transient people do not show up for court, which triggers the warrant of arrest process. A misdemeanor warrant is also not bailable and the person remains out of jail and the cycle starts over. We do enforce trespassing, but as you can see the results of this work are hard to see and appear ineffective. Arresting someone is not always the answer, but it is one of the tools we need to promote accountability. I realize this is not the information you wanted to hear and most likely only increases your frustration. As such, I would like to share what our plan and next steps are to help. Our CAT Team is highly skilled and has had successes in handling these more complex situations. We are in communication with the court and are seeking a path which will ultimately allow us to finally arrest and hold “John” on a bail enhancement. With this option, we can hopefully take him off the streets where he can stand trial for the many outstanding violations already logged against him. A bail enhancement is not a tool that is always available to us, but in this case and under these repeat circumstances, I feel confident that these are the right conditions to favor the department being granted this option by the court. I realize you do not wish to continue to call PD every time he is there, but we need to continue to respond and do our best to log and prosecute these occurrences. As I close, I just wanted to provide you some additional information about how the city is working to address this highly complex and sociological issue we are facing. I fully acknowledge your case is different and I think we have an effective plan to make a difference, but here is some additional information on this topic you might find informative. While the County government is primarily responsible for providing public services to unhoused individuals in our city, we recognize that there are things the City can do to reduce homelessness within our City limits. Here’s what we’re currently doing: First, we’re focused on making it easier to build more affordable and workforce housing here. Second, we are working directly with local non-profit partners and the County to reduce homelessness. And third, we have boots on the ground every day connecting unhoused community members with services to help get them back on their feet. Over the next two years, the City expects to do more than ever regarding housing and homelessness. Per our 2021-23 Financial Plan, we will: Add a second social worker to our Community Action Team (CAT) to support public safety and access to critical homeless services. Add new programs to the Housing Element of the General Plan to expand affordable and workforce housing opportunities downtown and in single-family neighborhoods. Enhance the City’s Homeless Team coordination among various key staff from City Departments and develop a strategic plan to guide City actions. Improve environmental protection and water quality with cleanups of creeks, open spaces, public spaces, and parks. Continue to participate in regional collaboration efforts. Seek out grant opportunities to support regional solutions to reduce chronic homelessness. Create a Mobile Crisis Unit to support our chronically unhoused community members and reduce emergency dispatch of paramedics and law enforcement to those who need non- emergency support. Expand our support for funding of non‐profit social service providers that specialize in services to help people transition into housing. Engage community members and stakeholder groups to support housing and homelessness efforts. Clean up creeks and open space areas associated with abandoned personal property and trash. Financially contribute to additional safe parking programs in San Luis Obispo. Financially contribute to coordinated regional efforts to expand transitional housing and shelter resources. Financially contribute to a 25% increase in the number of beds at 40 Prado Homeless Services center and more. Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and I look forward to working for a more positive outcome. Respectfully, Rick Scott Police Chief <image001.png> Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Joanna Maino Whitcher <JoannaW@mainoslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:19 PM To: Klevins, John <jklevins@slocity.org>; Koznek, Tim <tkoznek@slocity.org> Cc: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Mikie Maino <mikie@mainoslo.com>; Tom Maino <Tom@mainoslo.com> Subject: 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street Homeless Issues This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John and Tim, I read with interest today the Tribune story concerning the homeless issues plaguing the area around the Elks Lodge and the City's response to same. Honestly, for property owners in the City of SLO, the City's response is disheartening. I recall that ten years ago the City set its priority to solve homeless; now City officials say homeless solutions are "...a top priority... over the next 2 years." From my perspective, the problem has only increased exponentially over the past 10 years and it continues to be an out of control blight throughout our community. Apart from my opinions above, the purpose of this correspondence is to request your help with solutions for homeless issues that I am regularly encountering. I am an owner of premises located in downtown SLO at 1020 Marsh Street/1150 Osos Street (commonly known as the Merrill Lynch Buiilding). The building and the parking lot area are private property. We post signage that it is private property and that no trespassing is allowed. We regularly submit PC 602 letters to the City, as directed. The building exterior is illuminated at night. We have service providers at our premises who regularly remove homeless persons and their detritus. I, personally, clean up trash and debris from the premises and have called the police more than once in the last few weeks to remove homeless persons and their encampments from the premises. On each occasion, I have verbally authorized, beyond the 602 letter, the officers/police department to actively enforce no trespassing at the premises. Bottom line, we do NOT consent to have homeless persons on our private property at any time for any purpose. The serial trespasser that I have had removed from premises is called "John" and he seems to be very well known by the police, based on my observations. I know, however, that he is not alone in his trespass; there are definitely others. "John" and others set themselves up in the building alcoves and stairwells, and disrupt points of building ingress/egress for our tenants and their visitors. We are constantly left to deal with trash and human waste, that is literally deposited ON and around the building. It is truly offensive. To say that the situation is getting old is understatement. I am left to wonder why this situation has become my problem almost every day? What do I need to do to keep "John" and other homeless persons off my private property? Clearly, we do not operate a campground. Our premises are not a garbage dump! Our building is not a toilet! Each time the police have responded to my calls they tell me that all they can do is "re-direct" the person and "hopefully" the person will not return. I find this response wholly unacceptable. I do not have the resources to deal with mentally ill homeless persons. This is why I call the police. Yet, what is the point of my spending an hour or more to call the police dispatch number (which is printed in the newspaper as a resource) and wait to engage with the police when they apparently cannot enforce against the trespass? The police seem to have no way to cure or deter the problem beyond their immediate response to my request for dispatch. So, I return to the same circumstance again the next day and the process repeats . . .again and again and again. It is such an inordinate waste of time and energy and resources. Should I be contacting some other City resource for assistance? Based on your CAT experience and expertise, I am seeking your thoughts and solutions for how we deal with this ongoing situation. How do we keep homeless persons from constantly trespassing, damaging and disrupting business on our private property? Is there nothing the City can do to assist with solving this problem? Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. Regards, Joanna Maino Whitcher Joanna M. Whitcher Maino Tel.: 805-543-7411 Cell: 805-441-0038 joannaw@mainoslo.com From:Ben@stalwork.com To:Dietrick, Christine; Kersten, Markie Subject:Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48:11 PM Attachments:AB1732-Signs-from-ADA-Sign-Depot-at-a-glance.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Dietrick, Christine To:Ben@stalwork.com; Kersten, Markie Subject:RE: Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:13:29 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png Ben, as you know, Markie will be independently handling any matters you may need to have addressed by our office, but I will say that it will be helpful for her to have copies of whatever correspondence or communication you have received from Stephen and/or to understand the rule or regulation pursuant to which he has conveyed he is acting. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: Stephen Ames This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Jorgensen, Markie To:Ben@stalwork.com Subject:RE: Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:53:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hi Ben, Happy to look into this. As Christine suggested, please send me any correspondence you have with Stephen related to this issue. Thanks, Markie From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:13 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Ben, as you know, Markie will be independently handling any matters you may need to have addressed by our office, but I will say that it will be helpful for her to have copies of whatever correspondence or communication you have received from Stephen and/or to understand the rule or regulation pursuant to which he has conveyed he is acting. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: Stephen Ames This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Ben@stalwork.com To:Dietrick, Christine; Kersten, Markie Subject:RE: Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:22:34 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Markie: Stephen Ames supplies no documentation, no code, and no written communication to support his positions and refuses to supply any paperwork to support his unfounded claims. -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:13 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Ben, as you know, Markie will be independently handling any matters you may need to have addressed by our office, but I will say that it will be helpful for her to have copies of whatever correspondence or communication you have received from Stephen and/or to understand the rule or regulation pursuant to which he has conveyed he is acting. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: Stephen Ames This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Ben@stalwork.com To:Kersten, Markie Subject:RE: Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:36:22 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Can you call and ask the guy and say stop doing this if you are? Seems like this would be the simple solution. -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:54 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Hi Ben, Happy to look into this. As Christine suggested, please send me any correspondence you have with Stephen related to this issue. Thanks, Markie From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:13 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Ben, as you know, Markie will be independently handling any matters you may need to have addressed by our office, but I will say that it will be helpful for her to have copies of whatever correspondence or communication you have received from Stephen and/or to understand the rule or regulation pursuant to which he has conveyed he is acting. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: Stephen Ames This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Stanwyck, Shelly To:Codron, Michael Subject:FW: Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:07:30 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Another one that the City attorney got drawn into but no idea if you were looped in and . . . .two of two From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:24 PM To: Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Stephen Ames Shelly: It is so out of control with these people and continues to spiral downhill. Ask Stephen. That simple. He’s wrong. Stop him. What are we doing? -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:22 PM To: 'Dietrick, Christine' <cdietric@slocity.org>; 'Jorgensen, Markie' <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Markie: Stephen Ames supplies no documentation, no code, and no written communication to support his positions and refuses to supply any paperwork to support his unfounded claims. -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:13 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Ben, as you know, Markie will be independently handling any matters you may need to have addressed by our office, but I will say that it will be helpful for her to have copies of whatever correspondence or communication you have received from Stephen and/or to understand the rule or regulation pursuant to which he has conveyed he is acting. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: Stephen Ames This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Ben@stalwork.com To:Kersten, Markie Subject:RE: Stephen Ames Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 4:01:01 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png There is no rationale. The law is clear, he is wrong, ask him to stop. This is not city rules, this is CA LAW. -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:45 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Ben, I am planning to call Stephen to find out his rationale, but was hoping for some background before doing so. I’ll keep you posted. Thanks, Markie From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:36 PM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Can you call and ask the guy and say stop doing this if you are? Seems like this would be the simple solution. -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:54 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Hi Ben, Happy to look into this. As Christine suggested, please send me any correspondence you have with Stephen related to this issue. Thanks, Markie From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:13 PM To: Ben@stalwork.com; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Stephen Ames Ben, as you know, Markie will be independently handling any matters you may need to have addressed by our office, but I will say that it will be helpful for her to have copies of whatever correspondence or communication you have received from Stephen and/or to understand the rule or regulation pursuant to which he has conveyed he is acting. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Ben@stalwork.com <Ben@stalwork.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Subject: Stephen Ames This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Attorneys: Stephen Ames is enforcing and mandating regulations that do not exist. His current egregious behavior includes that this sign is not acceptable for a bathroom. Please correct this behavior immediately. Not only is this holding final inspections but costing the public time, money, and dollars and is completely incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1732 https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2017/03/articles/uncategorized/california-adopts-broad- gender-neutral-bathroom-rules-signage-rules-expand-beyond-ada-concerns/ https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local- updates/pages/california-equal-restroom-access-act.aspx -Ben Kulick- STALWORK, INC. CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN License #948012 P.O. Box 391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 O 805.542.0033 F 805.542.0837 ben@stalwork.com www.stalwork.com From:Bailey, Georgina To:Dietrick, Christine; Peter Johnson; Purrington, Teresa Cc:Christian, Kevin; Szentesi, Whitney; Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: NHC email -- New Times Date:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:01:28 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Good Morning Peter, The email that is referenced is a Memorandum sent to Natural Healing Center on October 15, 2021, which is Exhibit 5 of the Memorandum of Decision sent to Natural Healing Center October 19, 2021. Exhibit 5 starts on page 88. Thank you, Georgina From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:52 AM To: Peter Johnson <pjohnson@newtimesslo.com>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Cc: Bailey, Georgina <gbailey@slocity.org>; Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: NHC email -- New Times Hi Peter, I am looping in Georgina, our cannabis program coordinator, who I believe will have the quickest access. Georgina, I believe that Peter is referencing the security plan inspection follow up letter from Chad to Ms. Garcia. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Peter Johnson <pjohnson@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 9:56 AM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: NHC email -- New Times This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Teresa and Christine, I'd like to request a copy of an email referenced by Christine during the city's virtual meeting with Natural Healing Center lawyers in which she said SLO expressed concern about Helios Daypsring's continued involvement in the Broad Street dispensary project as recently as a few weeks ago. Thank you. Peter -- Peter Johnson Assistant Editor 805-546-8208 ex 217 New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 546-8208 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution From:Peter Johnson To:Bailey, Georgina Cc:Dietrick, Christine; Purrington, Teresa; Christian, Kevin; Szentesi, Whitney; Hermann, Greg Subject:Re: NHC email -- New Times Date:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:34:11 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Thanks! On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:01 AM Bailey, Georgina <gbailey@slocity.org> wrote: Good Morning Peter, The email that is referenced is a Memorandum sent to Natural Healing Center on October 15, 2021, which is Exhibit 5 of the Memorandum of Decision sent to Natural Healing Center October 19, 2021. Exhibit 5 starts on page 88. Thank you, Georgina From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:52 AM To: Peter Johnson <pjohnson@newtimesslo.com>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Cc: Bailey, Georgina <gbailey@slocity.org>; Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: NHC email -- New Times Hi Peter, I am looping in Georgina, our cannabis program coordinator, who I believe will have the quickest access. Georgina, I believe that Peter is referencing the security plan inspection follow up letter from Chad to Ms. Garcia. Thanks, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Peter Johnson <pjohnson@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 9:56 AM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: NHC email -- New Times This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Teresa and Christine, I'd like to request a copy of an email referenced by Christine during the city's virtual meeting with Natural Healing Center lawyers in which she said SLO expressed concern about Helios Daypsring's continued involvement in the Broad Street dispensary project as recently as a few weeks ago. Thank you. Peter -- Peter Johnson Assistant Editor 805-546-8208 ex 217 New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 546-8208 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution -- Peter Johnson Assistant Editor 805-546-8208 ex 217 New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 546-8208 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution From:Randall Fox To:Christian, Kevin; Emily Epstein Cc:CityClerk; City_Attorney Subject:RE: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Date:Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:22:38 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png GOV_6253. (1).pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mr. Christian, Thank you for the responsive documents for items 1,4, and 9. Your below email gives notice that another batch of responsive documents will be made available within 60 days of October 25, 2021. Government Code section 6253(c), copy attached, provides the time limit (10 days) prescribed may be extended by no more than 14 days. Accordingly, please make available the remaining responsive documents by November 8, 2021. I am willing to discuss this further with you but at the very least, we need the responsive documents to Item No. 5 by November 8, 2021 and that provide us with a more reasonable time estimate to which you will have remaining the documents ready. Randy Confidentiality Notice: This message is meant only for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please do not forward this email. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately at frontdesk@reetzfox.com and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Randall Fox, Esq. Reetz, Fox & Bartlett LLP 116 E. Sola Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.965.0523 / 805.564.8675 rbfox@reetzfox.com www.reetzfox.com From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 5:10 PM To: Emily Epstein <eepstein@reetzfox.com>; Randall Fox <rbfox@reetzfox.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Dear Mr. Fox, The City Attorney’s Office for the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted preliminary searches for your request dated October 14, 2021. Staff found several thousand potentially responsive records for items 1-26 of your request. We have begun the process of sorting through these documents for responsiveness, confidentiality, and exemption from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. We estimate that an initial batch of responsive documents will be produced within 60 days of this determination. After this 60-day period, we will continue to sort through the remaining documents and provide responsive, disclosable records on a rolling basis. Initially, we have responsive documents available for your Items numbered 1, 4, and 9. They are listed below and are available in our records archive at the provided link. http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=148893&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Item #subfolder (if any)File Name No. Pgs. 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Cannabis CMR with Attachments 25 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet MANU DIST RETAIL (non-storefront) Final 1 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet RETAIL (storefront) Final 1 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet RETAIL (storefront) Final 4.17.19 1 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application_1-29-19 14 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION FINAL 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application 20 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Harvest SLO Application 20 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit Application Form 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - MOM at the Pet Hospital 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - MOM Retail Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC 23 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - NHC Digital Application 23 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - SLO CAL Roots Business Plan 11 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications Cali Direct City of SLO Cannabis Application Mobile Delivery (2)148 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION - Complete 204 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit - Complete 37 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application_1-29-19 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION FINAL 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application 2 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Harvest SLO Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit Application Form 2 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - MOM at the Pet Hospital 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - MOM Retail Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - NHC Digital Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - SLO CAL Roots Business Plan (black & white)1 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application - Complete 725 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application - complete 413 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application - complete 426 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application - Complete 176 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Harvest SLO Application - Complete 413 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Megan's Organic (280 Higuera) Application Form 8 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Megan's Organic (300 Higuera) Application Form 7 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications MOM at the Pet Hospital - complete 594 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications MOM Retail Permit Application - complete 598 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC - Complete 198 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Natural Healing Center Application Form 7 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications NHC Digital Application - Complete 638 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications SLO CAL Roots Business Plan - complete 307 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications SLOCal Roots Application Form 7 4 Item 4...Cali Direct Transfer Request Transfer of Ownership Notification to Cali Direct 1 4 Item 4...Cali Direct Transfer Request Cali Direct Transfer Request 2 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request MOM SLO LLC 3 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Initial City Correspondence on MOMs Transfer Request 1 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Follow-Up MOMs Transfer Request City of San Luis Obispo 20 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Follow-Up City Correspondence on MOM's Transfer Request 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC Transfer - Dietrick request for further info 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request 9.9.2020 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request 10.9.2020 4 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC 10.30.20 Correspondence to Christine Dietrick 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request Natural Healing Center Operator Permit 2 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request City of San Luis Obispo NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request Response 1 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Nick Andre Assignment of Interest 1 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request NHC Land Use Permit (USE-0371-2019N-- 2600 and 2640 Broad St.)3 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Initial NHC Transfer Request - Nick Andre 8 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Initial City Correspondence 2 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Follow-Up NHC Notification and Transfer Request - Nick Andre 8 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Follow-Up City Correspondence to NHC - Nick Andre 1 9 Item 9… - 2018 Candidate Files many files 9 Item 9… - 2020 Candidate Files many files 9 Item 9… - Campaign Filings 01_01_2020 to present Shortcut to Campaign Filings 01_01_2020 to present in our Campaign filing software 9 Item 9… - SEI 2016 to present Shortcut to Statement of Economic Interest Filings software Thank you for your patience as we conduct these searches. Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristi@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From:Christian, Kevin To:Randall Fox; Emily Epstein Cc:CityClerk; City_Attorney Subject:RE: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Date:Thursday, October 28, 2021 5:09:51 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hello Mr. Fox, Thank you for acknowledging receipt of responsive records for items 1, 4, and 9 of your request. Government Code Section 6253 (c) concerns the time parameters in which an initial determination of whether responsive records exist is required. This “determination,” as noted in the Code, must express “whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency;" Section 6253 (c) does not require the agency disclose these records within any specified time frame. Rather, agencies are required to disclose non-exempt responsive records within a reasonable time, considering the volume of the request. We apologize for any confusion and look forward to producing additional records responsive to your request as staff allotted time permits. Respectfully, Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristi@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Randall Fox <rbfox@reetzfox.com> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:22 PM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org>; Emily Epstein <eepstein@reetzfox.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mr. Christian, Thank you for the responsive documents for items 1,4, and 9. Your below email gives notice that another batch of responsive documents will be made available within 60 days of October 25, 2021. Government Code section 6253(c), copy attached, provides the time limit (10 days) prescribed may be extended by no more than 14 days. Accordingly, please make available the remaining responsive documents by November 8, 2021. I am willing to discuss this further with you but at the very least, we need the responsive documents to Item No. 5 by November 8, 2021 and that provide us with a more reasonable time estimate to which you will have remaining the documents ready. Randy Confidentiality Notice: This message is meant only for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please do not forward this email. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately at frontdesk@reetzfox.com and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Randall Fox, Esq. Reetz, Fox & Bartlett LLP 116 E. Sola Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.965.0523 / 805.564.8675 rbfox@reetzfox.com www.reetzfox.com From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 5:10 PM To: Emily Epstein <eepstein@reetzfox.com>; Randall Fox <rbfox@reetzfox.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Dear Mr. Fox, The City Attorney’s Office for the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted preliminary searches for your request dated October 14, 2021. Staff found several thousand potentially responsive records for items 1-26 of your request. We have begun the process of sorting through these documents for responsiveness, confidentiality, and exemption from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. We estimate that an initial batch of responsive documents will be produced within 60 days of this determination. After this 60-day period, we will continue to sort through the remaining documents and provide responsive, disclosable records on a rolling basis. Initially, we have responsive documents available for your Items numbered 1, 4, and 9. They are listed below and are available in our records archive at the provided link. http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=148893&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Item #subfolder (if any)File Name No. Pgs. 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Cannabis CMR with Attachments 25 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet MANU DIST RETAIL (non-storefront) Final 1 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet RETAIL (storefront) Final 1 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet RETAIL (storefront) Final 4.17.19 1 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application_1-29-19 14 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION FINAL 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application 20 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Harvest SLO Application 20 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit Application Form 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - MOM at the Pet Hospital 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - MOM Retail Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC 23 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - NHC Digital Application 23 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - SLO CAL Roots Business Plan 11 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications Cali Direct City of SLO Cannabis Application Mobile Delivery (2)148 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION - Complete 204 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit - Complete 37 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application_1-29-19 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION FINAL 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application 2 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Harvest SLO Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit Application Form 2 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - MOM at the Pet Hospital 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - MOM Retail Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - NHC Digital Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - SLO CAL Roots Business Plan (black & white)1 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application - Complete 725 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application - complete 413 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application - complete 426 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application - Complete 176 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Harvest SLO Application - Complete 413 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Megan's Organic (280 Higuera) Application Form 8 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Megan's Organic (300 Higuera) Application Form 7 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications MOM at the Pet Hospital - complete 594 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications MOM Retail Permit Application - complete 598 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC - Complete 198 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Natural Healing Center Application Form 7 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications NHC Digital Application - Complete 638 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications SLO CAL Roots Business Plan - complete 307 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications SLOCal Roots Application Form 7 4 Item 4...Cali Direct Transfer Request Transfer of Ownership Notification to Cali Direct 1 4 Item 4...Cali Direct Transfer Request Cali Direct Transfer Request 2 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request MOM SLO LLC 3 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Initial City Correspondence on MOMs Transfer Request 1 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Follow-Up MOMs Transfer Request City of San Luis Obispo 20 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Follow-Up City Correspondence on MOM's Transfer Request 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC Transfer - Dietrick request for further info 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request 9.9.2020 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request 10.9.2020 4 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC 10.30.20 Correspondence to Christine Dietrick 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request Natural Healing Center Operator Permit 2 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request City of San Luis Obispo NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request Response 1 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Nick Andre Assignment of Interest 1 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request NHC Land Use Permit (USE-0371-2019N-- 2600 and 2640 Broad St.)3 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Initial NHC Transfer Request - Nick Andre 8 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Initial City Correspondence 2 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Follow-Up NHC Notification and Transfer Request - Nick Andre 8 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Follow-Up City Correspondence to NHC - Nick Andre 1 9 Item 9… - 2018 Candidate Files many files 9 Item 9… - 2020 Candidate Files many files 9 Item 9… - Campaign Filings 01_01_2020 to present Shortcut to Campaign Filings 01_01_2020 to present in our Campaign filing software 9 Item 9… - SEI 2016 to present Shortcut to Statement of Economic Interest Filings software Thank you for your patience as we conduct these searches. Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristi@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From:Dietrick, Christine To:Christian, Kevin; Randall Fox; Emily Epstein Cc:CityClerk; City_Attorney Subject:RE: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Date:Friday, October 29, 2021 11:59:00 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Mr. Fox, I would add to Mr. Christian’s response that we have a number of other high volume requests that preceded yours on which our limited staff is working diligently to address in the most timely way possible, taking into consideration that the City does not have dedicated PRA response staff, must balance other workload priorities, and must review potentially responsive records to identify privileged and otherwise exempt records. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 5:10 PM To: Randall Fox <rbfox@reetzfox.com>; Emily Epstein <eepstein@reetzfox.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Hello Mr. Fox, Thank you for acknowledging receipt of responsive records for items 1, 4, and 9 of your request. Government Code Section 6253 (c) concerns the time parameters in which an initial determination of whether responsive records exist is required. This “determination,” as noted in the Code, must express “whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency;" Section 6253 (c) does not require the agency disclose these records within any specified time frame. Rather, agencies are required to disclose non-exempt responsive records within a reasonable time, considering the volume of the request. We apologize for any confusion and look forward to producing additional records responsive to your request as staff allotted time permits. Respectfully, Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristi@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Randall Fox <rbfox@reetzfox.com> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:22 PM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org>; Emily Epstein <eepstein@reetzfox.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mr. Christian, Thank you for the responsive documents for items 1,4, and 9. Your below email gives notice that another batch of responsive documents will be made available within 60 days of October 25, 2021. Government Code section 6253(c), copy attached, provides the time limit (10 days) prescribed may be extended by no more than 14 days. Accordingly, please make available the remaining responsive documents by November 8, 2021. I am willing to discuss this further with you but at the very least, we need the responsive documents to Item No. 5 by November 8, 2021 and that provide us with a more reasonable time estimate to which you will have remaining the documents ready. Randy Confidentiality Notice: This message is meant only for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please do not forward this email. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately at frontdesk@reetzfox.com and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Randall Fox, Esq. Reetz, Fox & Bartlett LLP 116 E. Sola Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.965.0523 / 805.564.8675 rbfox@reetzfox.com www.reetzfox.com From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 5:10 PM To: Emily Epstein <eepstein@reetzfox.com>; Randall Fox <rbfox@reetzfox.com> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Records Request DETERMINATION and UPDATE: PRR21250 Fox - NHC Dear Mr. Fox, The City Attorney’s Office for the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted preliminary searches for your request dated October 14, 2021. Staff found several thousand potentially responsive records for items 1-26 of your request. We have begun the process of sorting through these documents for responsiveness, confidentiality, and exemption from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. We estimate that an initial batch of responsive documents will be produced within 60 days of this determination. After this 60-day period, we will continue to sort through the remaining documents and provide responsive, disclosable records on a rolling basis. Initially, we have responsive documents available for your Items numbered 1, 4, and 9. They are listed below and are available in our records archive at the provided link. http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=148893&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Item #subfolder (if any)File Name No. Pgs. 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Cannabis CMR with Attachments 25 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet MANU DIST RETAIL (non-storefront) Final 1 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet RETAIL (storefront) Final 1 1 Item 1...Cannabis Score Sheets Scoresheet RETAIL (storefront) Final 4.17.19 1 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application_1-29-19 14 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION FINAL 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application 20 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Harvest SLO Application 20 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit Application Form 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - MOM at the Pet Hospital 13 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - MOM Retail Permit Application 10 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC 23 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - NHC Digital Application 23 1 Item 1…Introductions Intro Only - SLO CAL Roots Business Plan 11 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications Cali Direct City of SLO Cannabis Application Mobile Delivery (2)148 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION - Complete 204 1 Item 1…Non StoreFront Applications Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit - Complete 37 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application_1-29-19 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - ELEMENT 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO - PDF APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION FINAL 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application 2 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Harvest SLO Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Lab Tested Digital Cannabis Business Operator Permit Application Form 2 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - MOM at the Pet Hospital 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - MOM Retail Permit Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - NHC Digital Application 1 1 Item 1…Ownership Information Ownership - SLO CAL Roots Business Plan (black & white)1 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications 805 SLO Beach Breaks Cannabis Retail Application - Complete 725 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Coastal Delivery SLO, LLC Permit Application - complete 413 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Coastal Retail SLO, LLC Permit Application - complete 426 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Elemental Wellness San Luis Obispo Retail Application - Complete 176 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Harvest SLO Application - Complete 413 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Megan's Organic (280 Higuera) Application Form 8 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Megan's Organic (300 Higuera) Application Form 7 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications MOM at the Pet Hospital - complete 594 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications MOM Retail Permit Application - complete 598 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Native Bliss - Hollister SLO, LLC - Complete 198 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications Natural Healing Center Application Form 7 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications NHC Digital Application - Complete 638 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications SLO CAL Roots Business Plan - complete 307 1 Item 1…StoreFront Applications SLOCal Roots Application Form 7 4 Item 4...Cali Direct Transfer Request Transfer of Ownership Notification to Cali Direct 1 4 Item 4...Cali Direct Transfer Request Cali Direct Transfer Request 2 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request MOM SLO LLC 3 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Initial City Correspondence on MOMs Transfer Request 1 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Follow-Up MOMs Transfer Request City of San Luis Obispo 20 4 Item 4...MOMs Transfer Request Follow-Up City Correspondence on MOM's Transfer Request 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC Transfer - Dietrick request for further info 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request 9.9.2020 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request 10.9.2020 4 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request NHC SLO, LLC 10.30.20 Correspondence to Christine Dietrick 1 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request Natural Healing Center Operator Permit 2 4 Item 4...NHC - Helios Dayspring Transfer Request City of San Luis Obispo NHC SLO, LLC Transfer Request Response 1 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Nick Andre Assignment of Interest 1 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request NHC Land Use Permit (USE-0371-2019N-- 2600 and 2640 Broad St.)3 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Initial NHC Transfer Request - Nick Andre 8 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Initial City Correspondence 2 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Follow-Up NHC Notification and Transfer Request - Nick Andre 8 4 Item 4… - NHC - Nick Andre Transfer Request Follow-Up City Correspondence to NHC - Nick Andre 1 9 Item 9… - 2018 Candidate Files many files 9 Item 9… - 2020 Candidate Files many files 9 Item 9… - Campaign Filings 01_01_2020 to present Shortcut to Campaign Filings 01_01_2020 to present in our Campaign filing software 9 Item 9… - SEI 2016 to present Shortcut to Statement of Economic Interest Filings software Thank you for your patience as we conduct these searches. Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristi@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The San Luis Obispo County BarAssociation invites you to attend a special event: Civility Matters This program highlights important issues and decisions that lawyers and judges face daily where civility is a deserving consideration. The panel will discuss how civility or its absence impacts lawyers and their clients, the bench and the public at large. The discussion will include an important update on the State Bar’s current efforts to achieve real civility among its members. From:Kerrin Hovarter, Executive Director To:Kersten, Markie Subject:Civility Matters Date:Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:08:21 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. The Honorable Hernaldo J. Baltodano was appointed to the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by Governor Edmund Gerald Brown Jr. on November 2, 2017. He was later elected by San Luis Obispo County voters in a contested judicial election on June 5, 2018. Judge Baltodano currently serves in the Civil Department in Paso Robles, presiding over unlimited and limited civil cases, and previously served in the Criminal Department for almost four years, including serving as the Supervising Criminal Judge, responsible for county- wide administrative and criminal operations for the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. In addition to previously serving as the Presiding Judge for several collaborative courts (Behavioral Health Treatment Court, Adult Treatment Court Collaborative, and Mental Health Diversion Court), Judge Baltodano is a founding justice partner for the Court’s AB 1810 Mental Health Diversion Court and the Court’s Misdemeanor Diversion Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.95. Judge Baltodano currently serves on the Executive Board of the California Judges Association (“CJA”), which represents over 2,200 active and retired judges, and Governor Gavin Newsom’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee for the Central Coast Region. As a member of CJA, Judge Baltodano currently serves on JetPAC, which assists judges across the state who face election challenges, and the California Latino Judges Association. He previously served as the Vice Chair of the CJA Judicial Elections Committee. Judge Baltodano enjoys judging mock trial competitions for county middle school and high school students, and mentoring lawyers and law students across the state. He is a graduate of UC Davis and UC Berkeley School of Law. Roy Ogden is a business lawyer and partner in Ogden & Fricks LLP. Mr. Ogden’s practice is largely devoted to real estate, construction and business litigation. He also handles probate and trust litigation matters. Mr. Ogden has had over sixty state and federal trials including over thirty jury trials, handled dozens of successful appeals before the State Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court and several binding arbitrations. Mr. Ogden also counsels clients on land use and planning issues and regularly appears before local governmental agencies. Mr. Ogden also drafts and negotiates contracts and other documents in connection with real estate matters, construction projects and business transactions. Mr. Ogden received his bachelor of science degree in Aeronautics from San Jose State University and received his law degree from UCLA School of Law. He has been practicing law since 1986, when he worked at an L.A. based firm formerly known as Wyman, Bautzer, Kuchel & Silbert. In 1989, Mr. Ogden moved to San Luis Obispo and joined the law firm of Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut & Baggett, where he became a partner. In 1997, he left to start his own firm. Mr. Ogden is a member of the San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles County Bar Associations and has served on the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Bar Association. Mr. Ogden is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Ogden has served as President of the California Coast Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, an organization where membership is available only by invitation to experienced trial counsel. Mr. Martin joined Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green in 2018. His broad legal experience is concentrated in the areas of public entity defense, business and commercial litigation, personal injury, real property disputes, landlord-tenant issues, and selective white-collar criminal litigation. Mr. Martin has been litigating a wide range of cases for his entire career. He has gained experience practicing in family, civil and criminal courts, and has tried cases both in San Luis Obispo and in numerous other counties in California. His current practice is focused on public and private civil litigation. Mr. Martin has tried nearly 30 jury trials to verdict and over 50 court trials. Those cases include the successful defense of business owners, medical professionals, and public entities, and the prosecution of homicides, sex offenders and other violent criminals. In law school, Mr. Martin was a member of the University of Idaho Trial Team, competing in mock trial competitions throughout the western United States. He also served as the Associated Students Attorney General, advising the University of Idaho Student Government, and defending undergraduate and graduate students in Education Code violation hearings. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Martin served as a Judicial Clerk in the District Court of the Honorable John R. Stegner, now an Idaho Supreme Court Justice. After moving to San Luis Obispo in 2008, Mr. Martin became an associate attorney at the civil litigation firm of Hall, Hieatt & Connely where he concentrated on professional liability defense, personal injury, and public entity defense. Seeking additional trial experience, Mr. Martin next served as a Deputy District Attorney for San Luis Obispo County from 2013 through 2018 before joining Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green in 2018. Mr. Martin is admitted to practice in all courts of the State of California and United States District Courts, Northern, Eastern and Central Districts of California. He is the past chair of the Young Lawyers Association for the San Luis Obispo County Bar Association and has been a longstanding board member of the San Luis Obispo Symphony and Five Cities Youth Baseball league. Mr. Martin is a 2012 graduate of Leadership SLO and, in 2015, he was honored as a “Top 20 Under 40” by the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Bachelor of Science in Education, Northern Arizona University Non-degree seeking coursework in Rural Sustainable Development, University of South Africa Juris Doctorate, University of Idaho, College of Law Mr. Martin lives in Arroyo Grande with his wife and three sons. He is an active community member and volunteers as a youth athletics coach and as a parent advocate for the San Luis Obispo Youth Symphony. ----------------------- Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 Time: 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Location: Zoom Register online for this event here: Civility Matters (slobar.org) The San Luis Obispo County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This program qualifies for one (1) hour of MCLE credit. Thank you! Kerrin Hovarter, Executive DirectorSan Luis Obispo County Bar AssociationPO Box 585San Luis Obispo, CA 93406Tel 805.541.5930www.slobar.orgslobar@slobar.org Follow and like us:Facebook @slobarassociationInstagram @SLO_BarAssocTwitter @slo_bar_association Copyright © 2021 San Luis Obispo County Bar Association, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: San Luis Obispo County Bar Association PO Box 585 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0585 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. The San Luis Obispo County Bar Association invites you to attend a special event: Civility Matters This program highlights important issues and decisions that lawyers and judges face daily where civility is a deserving consideration. The panel will discuss how civility or its absence impacts lawyers and their clients, the bench and the public at large. The discussion will include an important update on the State Bar’s current efforts to achieve real civility among its members. From:Dietrick, Christine To:Rico, Christopher Subject:FW: Civility Matters Date:Thursday, November 18, 2021 2:07:00 PM Attachments:image014.png image015.png image016.png image017.png Can you please register me if it works. Thx. From: Kerrin Hovarter, Executive Director <slobar@slobar.org> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:08 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Civility Matters This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. The Honorable Hernaldo J. Baltodano was appointed to the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by Governor Edmund Gerald Brown Jr. on November 2, 2017. He was later elected by San Luis Obispo County voters in a contested judicial election on June 5, 2018. Judge Baltodano currently serves in the Civil Department in Paso Robles, presiding over unlimited and limited civil cases, and previously served in the Criminal Department for almost four years, including serving as the Supervising Criminal Judge, responsible for county- wide administrative and criminal operations for the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. In addition to previously serving as the Presiding Judge for several collaborative courts (Behavioral Health Treatment Court, Adult Treatment Court Collaborative, and Mental Health Diversion Court), Judge Baltodano is a founding justice partner for the Court’s AB 1810 Mental Health Diversion Court and the Court’s Misdemeanor Diversion Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.95. Judge Baltodano currently serves on the Executive Board of the California Judges Association (“CJA”), which represents over 2,200 active and retired judges, and Governor Gavin Newsom’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee for the Central Coast Region. As a member of CJA, Judge Baltodano currently serves on JetPAC, which assists judges across the state who face election challenges, and the California Latino Judges Association. He previously served as the Vice Chair of the CJA Judicial Elections Committee. Judge Baltodano enjoys judging mock trial competitions for county middle school and high school students, and mentoring lawyers and law students across the state. He is a graduate of UC Davis and UC Berkeley School of Law. Roy Ogden is a business lawyer and partner in Ogden & Fricks LLP. Mr. Ogden’s practice is largely devoted to real estate, construction and business litigation. He also handles probate and trust litigation matters. Mr. Ogden has had over sixty state and federal trials including over thirty jury trials, handled dozens of successful appeals before the State Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court and several binding arbitrations. Mr. Ogden also counsels clients on land use and planning issues and regularly appears before local governmental agencies. Mr. Ogden also drafts and negotiates contracts and other documents in connection with real estate matters, construction projects and business transactions. Mr. Ogden received his bachelor of science degree in Aeronautics from San Jose State University and received his law degree from UCLA School of Law. He has been practicing law since 1986, when he worked at an L.A. based firm formerly known as Wyman, Bautzer, Kuchel & Silbert. In 1989, Mr. Ogden moved to San Luis Obispo and joined the law firm of Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut & Baggett, where he became a partner. In 1997, he left to start his own firm. Mr. Ogden is a member of the San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles County Bar Associations and has served on the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Bar Association. Mr. Ogden is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Ogden has served as President of the California Coast Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, an organization where membership is available only by invitation to experienced trial counsel. Mr. Martin joined Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green in 2018. His broad legal experience is concentrated in the areas of public entity defense, business and commercial litigation, personal injury, real property disputes, landlord-tenant issues, and selective white-collar criminal litigation. Mr. Martin has been litigating a wide range of cases for his entire career. He has gained experience practicing in family, civil and criminal courts, and has tried cases both in San Luis Obispo and in numerous other counties in California. His current practice is focused on public and private civil litigation. Mr. Martin has tried nearly 30 jury trials to verdict and over 50 court trials. Those cases include the successful defense of business owners, medical professionals, and public entities, and the prosecution of homicides, sex offenders and other violent criminals. In law school, Mr. Martin was a member of the University of Idaho Trial Team, competing in mock trial competitions throughout the western United States. He also served as the Associated Students Attorney General, advising the University of Idaho Student Government, and defending undergraduate and graduate students in Education Code violation hearings. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Martin served as a Judicial Clerk in the District Court of the Honorable John R. Stegner, now an Idaho Supreme Court Justice. After moving to San Luis Obispo in 2008, Mr. Martin became an associate attorney at the civil litigation firm of Hall, Hieatt & Connely where he concentrated on professional liability defense, personal injury, and public entity defense. Seeking additional trial experience, Mr. Martin next served as a Deputy District Attorney for San Luis Obispo County from 2013 through 2018 before joining Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green in 2018. Mr. Martin is admitted to practice in all courts of the State of California and United States District Courts, Northern, Eastern and Central Districts of California. He is the past chair of the Young Lawyers Association for the San Luis Obispo County Bar Association and has been a longstanding board member of the San Luis Obispo Symphony and Five Cities Youth Baseball league. Mr. Martin is a 2012 graduate of Leadership SLO and, in 2015, he was honored as a “Top 20 Under 40” by the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Bachelor of Science in Education, Northern Arizona University Non-degree seeking coursework in Rural Sustainable Development, University of South Africa Juris Doctorate, University of Idaho, College of Law Mr. Martin lives in Arroyo Grande with his wife and three sons. He is an active community member and volunteers as a youth athletics coach and as a parent advocate for the San Luis Obispo Youth Symphony. ----------------------- Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 Time: 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Location: Zoom Register online for this event here: Civility Matters (slobar.org) The San Luis Obispo County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This program qualifies for one (1) hour of MCLE credit. Thank you! Kerrin Hovarter, Executive Director San Luis Obispo County Bar Association PO Box 585 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Tel 805.541.5930 www.slobar.org slobar@slobar.org Follow and like us: Facebook @slobarassociation Instagram @SLO_BarAssoc Twitter @slo_bar_association Copyright © 2021 San Luis Obispo County Bar Association, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: San Luis Obispo County Bar Association PO Box 585 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0585 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. The San Luis Obispo County BarAssociation invites you to attend a special event: Civility Matters This program highlights important issues and decisions that lawyers and judges face daily where civility is a deserving consideration. The panel will discuss how civility or its absence impacts lawyers and their clients, the bench and the public at large. The discussion will include an important update on the State Bar’s current efforts to achieve real civility among its members. From:Kerrin Hovarter, Executive Director To:Kersten, Markie Subject:Civility Matters Date:Wednesday, November 24, 2021 8:49:41 AM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. The Honorable Hernaldo J. Baltodano was appointed to the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by Governor Edmund Gerald Brown Jr. on November 2, 2017. He was later elected by San Luis Obispo County voters in a contested judicial election on June 5, 2018. Judge Baltodano currently serves in the Civil Department in Paso Robles, presiding over unlimited and limited civil cases, and previously served in the Criminal Department for almost four years, including serving as the Supervising Criminal Judge, responsible for county- wide administrative and criminal operations for the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. In addition to previously serving as the Presiding Judge for several collaborative courts (Behavioral Health Treatment Court, Adult Treatment Court Collaborative, and Mental Health Diversion Court), Judge Baltodano is a founding justice partner for the Court’s AB 1810 Mental Health Diversion Court and the Court’s Misdemeanor Diversion Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.95. Judge Baltodano currently serves on the Executive Board of the California Judges Association (“CJA”), which represents over 2,200 active and retired judges, and Governor Gavin Newsom’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee for the Central Coast Region. As a member of CJA, Judge Baltodano currently serves on JetPAC, which assists judges across the state who face election challenges, and the California Latino Judges Association. He previously served as the Vice Chair of the CJA Judicial Elections Committee. Judge Baltodano enjoys judging mock trial competitions for county middle school and high school students, and mentoring lawyers and law students across the state. He is a graduate of UC Davis and UC Berkeley School of Law. Roy Ogden is a business lawyer and partner in Ogden & Fricks LLP. Mr. Ogden’s practice is largely devoted to real estate, construction and business litigation. He also handles probate and trust litigation matters. Mr. Ogden has had over sixty state and federal trials including over thirty jury trials, handled dozens of successful appeals before the State Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court and several binding arbitrations. Mr. Ogden also counsels clients on land use and planning issues and regularly appears before local governmental agencies. Mr. Ogden also drafts and negotiates contracts and other documents in connection with real estate matters, construction projects and business transactions. Mr. Ogden received his bachelor of science degree in Aeronautics from San Jose State University and received his law degree from UCLA School of Law. He has been practicing law since 1986, when he worked at an L.A. based firm formerly known as Wyman, Bautzer, Kuchel & Silbert. In 1989, Mr. Ogden moved to San Luis Obispo and joined the law firm of Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut & Baggett, where he became a partner. In 1997, he left to start his own firm. Mr. Ogden is a member of the San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles County Bar Associations and has served on the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Bar Association. Mr. Ogden is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Ogden has served as President of the California Coast Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, an organization where membership is available only by invitation to experienced trial counsel. Mr. Martin joined Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green in 2018. His broad legal experience is concentrated in the areas of public entity defense, business and commercial litigation, personal injury, real property disputes, landlord-tenant issues, and selective white-collar criminal litigation. Mr. Martin has been litigating a wide range of cases for his entire career. He has gained experience practicing in family, civil and criminal courts, and has tried cases both in San Luis Obispo and in numerous other counties in California. His current practice is focused on public and private civil litigation. Mr. Martin has tried nearly 30 jury trials to verdict and over 50 court trials. Those cases include the successful defense of business owners, medical professionals, and public entities, and the prosecution of homicides, sex offenders and other violent criminals. In law school, Mr. Martin was a member of the University of Idaho Trial Team, competing in mock trial competitions throughout the western United States. He also served as the Associated Students Attorney General, advising the University of Idaho Student Government, and defending undergraduate and graduate students in Education Code violation hearings. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Martin served as a Judicial Clerk in the District Court of the Honorable John R. Stegner, now an Idaho Supreme Court Justice. After moving to San Luis Obispo in 2008, Mr. Martin became an associate attorney at the civil litigation firm of Hall, Hieatt & Connely where he concentrated on professional liability defense, personal injury, and public entity defense. Seeking additional trial experience, Mr. Martin next served as a Deputy District Attorney for San Luis Obispo County from 2013 through 2018 before joining Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green in 2018. Mr. Martin is admitted to practice in all courts of the State of California and United States District Courts, Northern, Eastern and Central Districts of California. He is the past chair of the Young Lawyers Association for the San Luis Obispo County Bar Association and has been a longstanding board member of the San Luis Obispo Symphony and Five Cities Youth Baseball league. Mr. Martin is a 2012 graduate of Leadership SLO and, in 2015, he was honored as a “Top 20 Under 40” by the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Bachelor of Science in Education, Northern Arizona University Non-degree seeking coursework in Rural Sustainable Development, University of South Africa Juris Doctorate, University of Idaho, College of Law Mr. Martin lives in Arroyo Grande with his wife and three sons. He is an active community member and volunteers as a youth athletics coach and as a parent advocate for the San Luis Obispo Youth Symphony. ----------------------- Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 Time: 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Location: Zoom Register online for this event here: Civility Matters (slobar.org) The San Luis Obispo County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. This program qualifies for one (1) hour of MCLE credit. Thank you! Kerrin Hovarter, Executive DirectorSan Luis Obispo County Bar AssociationPO Box 585San Luis Obispo, CA 93406Tel 805.541.5930www.slobar.orgslobar@slobar.org Follow and like us:Facebook @slobarassociationInstagram @SLO_BarAssocTwitter @slo_bar_association Copyright © 2021 San Luis Obispo County Bar Association, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: San Luis Obispo County Bar Association PO Box 585 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0585 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.