Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2012 B1 SmithGoodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Safe Parking Council Agenda Item - Support Letter Attachments: SLO City Council Safe Parking Letter.pdf AGENDA From: Scott Smith CORRESPONDENCE Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:54 AM bate r D Item #—,dZ-- To: Marx, Jan; Carpenter, Dan; Carter, Andrew; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John Cc: Codron, Michael; Lichtig, Katie Subject: Safe Parking Council Agenda Item - Support Letter Dear San Luis Obispo City Council Members, At our March 13, 2012 meeting the Housing Committee of the Homeless Services Oversight Council considered the Safe Parking item scheduled for this Tuesday's City Council agenda. Attached is a letter regarding this agenda item. We thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter, and encourage you to move forward. Sincerely, Scott Smith Chair Housing Committee Homeless Services Oversight Council Scott Smith Deputy Director Peoples' Self -Help Housing 3533 Empleo, San Luis Obispo, CA Tel: (805)781 - 3088x453 Fax: (805) 544 -1901 SB Office: 26 E. Victoria Street, Santa Barbara Tel: (805)962 -5152 Fax: 962 -8152 littp://www.pshhc.oEg ►card co emrlif: p COUNCIL dCDDDIR d CITY MGR p FIT DIR d ASST CM d FIRE CHIEF ,d ATTORNEY 0 PW DIR ,6 CLERKIORIG IN POLICE CHIEF p PIB p PARKS & REC DIR fl TRIBUNE p UTIL DIR NEW TIMES )11 HR DIR SLO CITY NEWS p COUNCIL pi CITY MGR 0 CLERK Attention: Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity. The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies. 1 s.s March 16, 2012 Path to a Home To: San Luis Obispo City Council 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness RE: March 20 City Council Meeting. Agenda Item 1: We envisionafirture Pilot Safe Parking Program in the City of San Luis in which the housing Obispo and comprehensive services necessary to remain housed are Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council of San Luis availablefor all, Obispo: affording everyone maximum self - sufficiency, and the On behalf of the Housing Committee of the Homeless Services opportunity to be Oversight Council (HSOC), I would like to express our productive and appreciation that you are giving significant attention to participating members of our establishing a pilot Safe Parking Program for Homeless Persons community. in the Parking Lot of the Prado Day Center. The need to initiate such programs has been a consideration of HSOC for some time, and worthy enough that we passed a resolution in support of such efforts. We have attached a copy of that Resolution, and hope that you will consider our support for Safe Parking in making your decision. Please give me a call at 781 - 3088x453 if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Respect ully, ott Smith' hair - Housing Committee Homeless Services Oversight Council We envision afitture WHEREAS the incidence of homeless residents has increased in recent (aa3 years due to the recessionary times, and comprehensive HOMELESS SERVICES OVERSIGHT COUNCIL services necessary to WHEREAS a number of homeless residents sleep in their vehicles remain housed are avaiiableforall, RESOLUTION Path to a Home SAFE PARKING PROGRAM FOR HOMELESS 10 Year Plan to WHEREAS residents sleeping in vehicles create: 1) a perceived threat to End Homelessness public safety; 2) a concern for one's personal safety when forced to use a We envision afitture WHEREAS the incidence of homeless residents has increased in recent in which the housing years due to the recessionary times, and comprehensive services necessary to WHEREAS a number of homeless residents sleep in their vehicles remain housed are avaiiableforall, overnight, as their only form of shelter; affording everyone maximum self- WHEREAS residents sleeping in vehicles create: 1) a perceived threat to sufficiency, and the public safety; 2) a concern for one's personal safety when forced to use a opportunity to be productive and vehicle as night shelter; and 3 a drain on law enforcement resources; g ) participating members of our WHEREAS a number of jurisdictions have established Safe Parking community. Programs that provide a safe, designated location where homeless residents can park undisturbed for the night; WHEREAS a Safe Parking Program can facilitate outreach to homeless and can assist their transition to services and housing; WHEREAS the Homeless Services Oversight Council of San Luis Obispo County convened a discussion group who researched best practices of Safe Parking Programs and prepared informational materials for local use; THEREFORE the Homeless Services Oversight Council endorses Safe Parking as a necessary and valuable interim housing opport=unity, benefitting both the community and homeless residents. FURTHER, the Homeless Services Oversight Council urges local jurisdictions to seriously consider the establishment of Safe Parking projects and to make their best efforts to support such interim approaches, using the identified best practices. March 2011 Supervisor Adam Hill Chair, Homeless Services Oversight Council Homeless Services Oversight Council //P.O. Box 12101 / /San Luis Obispo, CA Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Response to SAFE PARKING PILOT PROGRAM AT PRADO DAY CENTER & DIRECTION REGARDING PUBLIC STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS From: Dee Torres Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:40 PM To: Tim Waag; Fran Davidson; slohansensCacharter.net; cindy nye; Meg Kuykendall; Andrew Waag; Tim Waag; Rev. Curt; James Waag; Sue Porter; cadoff@sbcci lobal.net; Dodie Imel; Shawn Ison; Della Wagner Cc: sgesell@slocity.org Subject: RE: Response to SAFE PARKING PILOT PROGRAM AT PRADO DAY CENTER & DIRECTION REGARDING PUBLIC STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS Hi Tim, Sorry that I haven't gotten to you sooner, I did ask Bill to give you a call and let you know that I wasn't ignoring you, just swamped. To be honest a large chunk of my time as of late has been discussing these very issues with many interested individuals. In actuality I am glad that we as a community are willing to discuss these very tough issues. These conversations are important and unfortunately very complicated. The RV /vehicle encampment which has developed out on Prado Road has brought up feelings and opinions from what feels like just about everyone in the City if not the County (I am probably being a bit over dramatic as it has been a long week and I'm a bit weary). I'm assuming that you plan to attend the Council Hearing on Tuesday and I'd hate to take up precious time during the meeting clarifying programmatic inaccuracies if they can be cleared up in advance, so I'll do my best here and welcome a follow -up conversation if needed. In reading your comments about our proposed program I want to say that you seem to be at a disadvantage, as it appears you don't have all the information. You state that we will serve "5 lucky family groups" in another sentence you refer to our program participants as "lottery winners ". This couldn't be further from the truth, our program participants will be people who are temporarily sleeping in their vehicles due to a variety of circumstances, but have the desire and are willing to take appropriate actions to move into permanent housing. These people aren't "lucky" they are in tough situations and willing to partner with us to help get them out of it and into better ones. You go on to describe the proposed program disparagingly by stating things like "it will NOT reduce the homeless problem in any statistically significant way ", "will not even make a small dent in the problem ", and again that it's a "temporary place to sleep for 5 lucky homeless ". Again, I'm not going to get into all of the details but I and my staff believe that these statements are incorrect. We believe that by offering people a safe place to park and the supportive services needed to secure permanent housing, we are making more than a small dent in homelessness. The statistics that are collected from this program will be very valuable as we can finally stop speculating about this issue. Having facts about why people are choosing to sleep in their vehicles rather than a shelter and what they're willing to do about it, will help us to decide if more sites are needed. You state that our MLM Shelter is full and most nights this is correct, but I should remind you that it's not full of "case managed" clients. If someone agrees to save their money for housing and work on barriers /set goals they are guaranteed a bed until they are housed (out of the 80 or so beds available including Over Flow less than 30 are choosing to save money and work with a case manager to get a job etc). I must admit I was saddened at the way in which you call into question our Case Management program statistics and outcomes, in your e-mail you state "I MAY BE DUMB, BUT I'M NOT STUPID: Sorry, but the statistic on page B1 -10 that "CAPSLO has a,-100% success rate transitioningpeopfe who remain in case management intol2ermanent housing." is misleading, self - serving„ or both." The "100% success rate" will always be 100%, since a client either drops out, stay ir�� or gets housing - voila! 100% success rate every time - by definition. Logically, the statement will always be true. This is absolutely not true, we could have clients who are doing everything right, working with a case manager and saving money, addressing substance abuse issues, looking for work etc, but due to the economy as you state either can't secure housing or employment. In these instances. to no fault of their own these clients aren't successful forcing us to drop them from the program "voila our success rate would go down ". This is not the cabz! We have a 100% success rate despite the lack of affordable housing, the economy, job market, etc.. If someone agrees to case management and works on goals with their case manager we will house them. We often take people with $0 or very little income and get them permanently housed. Once again if you want to have a discussion about the people who for whatever reason (more often than not due to drug /alcohol and or mental health issues) choose not to work with a case manager or once housed stop paying their rent, get evicted or even voluntarily move out and onto the streets or back into the shelter that's a very important discussion which deserves thoughtful conversations driven by evidence (you mention that we should keep these statistics, and we do). I give you my word that we don't advocate for our Case Management program to be deceitful and /or self serving as you state, adding more work to my staffs load only benefits our clients. as it adds to our workload. We advocate for this because it's proven successful. All that being said nowhere in our proposal or in the staff report will you see that I or anyone affiliated with this proposal is stating that this program will solve all illegal parking in this County or even the City. How the City responds to people who for whatever reason(s) do not want to participate in any of our programs is not for me to answer. I can simply continue to develop programs, I can't force people to take advantage of them. I hope I can clear up your stated "confusion" when you ask, "how can CAPSLO Guarantee spots for the willing? Aren't we limited to S spots: "those who are willing to actively participate in the case_ management program will receive a GUARANTEED PARKING SPACE until they are housed ". How can this be guaranteed with only 5 spaces? Since this program is brand new to our county all we can do at this point is speculate as to how many people will chose to take advantage of it. One indicator could be our warming station. We allow people to park in our lot when the warming station is activated. Since it's inception we've never had more than 5 vehicles at any one time. In fact a recent example of utilization would be last night, as our warming station was activated and 3 vehicles took advantage of this service. We also look to the fact that all people currently living in their vehicles have access to our case management program and very few are actually taking advantage of it. To clarify your correlation between, proposed regulations which may restrict parking in "extreme circumstances and even close select city streets" and the Prado Road encampments. I can tell you that my staff and I have made it clear to the City and the Chief that the unregulated encampment on Prado Road has been extremely problematic for our staff and clients. The health and safety issues are extreme and include physical altercations, verbal threats of violence, drug /alcohol use, defecating /urinating /littering, among other behaviors. This encampment has not only our staff /volunteers but many of our homeless clients report fear of walking down that street to get to our program and use services. We have also stated clearly our apprehension in developing and running a parking program inside the Prado gate while the behaviors described above continue at the encampment right outside. We've asked them to work with us on solutions and we believe that this program is an essential piece and a substantial solution again for those that are willing to take advantage of it. I am confused by your statement "Where should I go if I am homeless and Prado is full or will not take me ?" as a volunteer to the program I assumed you would know that in Prado's 15 year history we have never turned a client away due to "over capacity". You also state that Prado doesn't allow animals and go on to state why they shouldn't be allowed into our parking program, in actuality Tim this is incorrect. In an effort to be more accommodating and reduce another barrier for potential clients to access our services, several years ago we had on site kennels built in our garden area. These kennels can and do accommodate up to 6 animals at any time. So far we have found this to be a sufficient # as we have yet to turn any pets away due to over capacity. We are very proud of this program, we instituted it on a leap of faith believing it was the right thing to do despite the liability issues. To this day we continue to manage our pet program as we do all others and we've achieved such success that we plan to not only continue but expand this program to our new Center on South Higuera. In regards to the trash in the creek you state, "YOU CALL IT 40 TONS OF TRASH - HOW MUCH OF IT WAS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOME HOMELESS PERSON (WHO COULDNT CARRY IT AROUND ON THEIR BACKT' Again I can only speak from experience Tim, as someone who regularly works with the rangers and does outreach to the people at the creeks, the Trash they discuss is TRASH. I, Shawn, and others have witnessed first hand the trash that's strewn around these camp sites and in our creek right next to the empty plastic trash bags that we're given to campers a few days prior by the rangers. Another complicated issue which deserves thoughtful discussions based on facts. In regards to your question regarding the correlation between the economy, and the rise in crime and /or police calls specific to the homeless, all I can do is speak from our experience and statistics.- We are all in agreement that the economy is tough it's hitting all of us in a variety of ways, but in order to come up with real solutions we need to be completely honest in regards to the problem. We in homeless services have not seen a dramatic rise in people being displaced and actually on the streets /shelters due to the economy if you're equating that directly with "job loss ". For the most part with a few exceptions the majority of the people we work with and have the most difficult time housing are those who have severe drug /alcohol, and or mental /physical situations and in this regard it could be that the economy is exacerbating these issues as much needed services are cut. Again, this topic is too large to squeeze into an e-mail. If you're asking me if our statistics show that there has been a spike in people who have been displaced due to unemployment the answer would be no. Again, I appreciate your support for our programs and the fact that you obviously care about this issue. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments as this is very tough stuff and in my experience there are no easy answers or villains to vilify, just a lot of caring people trying to do there best to help. My cell is 440 -6760. Best, Dee. From: Tim Waag Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:06 AM To: Fran Davidson; slohansens @charter. net; cindy nye; Meg Kuykendall; Andrew Waag; Tim Waag; Rev. Curt; James Waag; Sue Porter; cadoffCcbsbcglobal.net; Dodie Imel; Dee Torres; Shawn Ison Subject: Response to SAFE PARKING PILOT PROGRAM AT PRADO DAY CENTER & DIRECTION REGARDING PUBLIC STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS My name is Tim Waag. For more than 10 years, I have put in thousands of hours volunteering at Prado Day Center, the Homeless Shelter Overflow, and assisting homeless people that I have met in SLO that are not in the CAPSLO system. SPP = Safe Parking Program SPP42 = The 42 page PDF file on S1oCity.org titled "SAFE PARKING PILOT PROGRAM AT PRADO DAY CENTER & DIRECTION REGARDING PUBLIC STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS ". Below is my analysis of SPP42 that is posted at www.CitySLO.org ( http: / /slocity.orglcityclgL aundas /2012/ 032012/ blsafei)arkingpradodaycenterpublieparkinp,.pdfl. This eLetter will be sent to the 5 SLO City Council Members, plus Police Chief Gesell. The so- called Pilot Safe Parking Area at Prado Road Day Center will be discussed on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at the SLO City Council Meeting (The City Council holds regular meetings at 7:00 p.m. on the first, second and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street). In order to be brief, I will summarize my comments and address them in order from most to least important. My apologies that this my letter is not more polished and brief. SUMMARY: In reviewing SPP42, I found numerous areas that I find disturbing. It appears that we are allowing 5 lucky family groups to park on asphault overnight in exchange for onerous and expensive new restrictions on parking throughout the entire city of SLO. I support increasing the vehicles in the SPP from 5 to 6 - we need provide safe parking for as many people as possible within the safety criteria suggested. IT COULD BE US: Those who are homeless in our city need a place to sleep TONIGHT - keep ti�at in mind. Put yourself in their shoes; most of us who support the transient population in finding permanent homes often utter "There but for the Grace of God go I" - you should too. SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE 1 ON PAGE B1 -16: [Page B1 -16 ALTERNATIVES] I strongly encourage the adoption of the SPP as soon as possible; therefore, I support Alternative 1. I OPPOSE the addition of new, costly and more restrictive parking ordinances that SPP42 proposes. Keep in mind that Pilot SPP does NOT reduce the homeless problem in any statistically significant way. However, it does provide a temporary place to sleep for 5 lucky homeless family groups. NEW PROHIBITIONS ON RVS PARKING ON SLO CITY STREETS - PART 1: I STRONGLY oppose a city ordinance "that prohibits parking of RVS on city streets" [page B1 -12, section 1) at top of page]. As an RV owner, I occasionally park my RV on the street, and strongly object to this provision. Also, a permitting process is an UNNECESSARY CITY AND TAXPAYER EXPENSE, and creates one more bureaucracy. I also STRONGLY oppose the other two provisions [2) and 3)] on the same page. Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo are NOT the same city! I own a Dodge Diesel truck (a standard cab truck - seating for 2 - with an 8 foot bed - it looks like a regular pickup truck) that I park on the street in front of my house that is a 3/4 ton, and I could no longer park it in front of my house (or at a friend's house) overnight? Really? Also on the same page: "Prohibits the parking of RVs within 500 feet of schools, churches, shelters and parks ". Not allowing detached trailers to park on city streets? Many contractors leave their utility trailers on the street overnight at a job site - do we really want to outlaw this? I OPPOSE a new parking permit system for oversized vehicles! $400 per sign expense for the city - can we afford this? The massive bureaucracy proposed by SPP42 is jaw- dropping. Please do NOT direct staff to address street parking regulations. This is just an easy way for the police to ticket every RV in the city parked on the street that does not have the magic and hard -to -get PERMIT. NEW PROHIBITIONS ON RVS PARKING ON SLO CITY STREETS - PART 2: I STRONGLY oppose efforts to "improve parking enforcement to address person sleeping in vehicles..." [page B1 -1, Recommendation 3)]; [page B1 -2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence]. The SPP should NOT result in more restrictive laws for those who are not one of the 5 lucky ones that get a spot in the SPP. Keep in mind that the Pilot SPP will not make even a SMALL dent in the problem. Witness the 30+ RVs referrenced by the SLO Police Department in SPP42 that are parking on Prado Road alone. The Pilot program should be done, but the SPP solution is but a tiny drop in the bucket. SPP42 continues in this vein on page B 1 -14, where it seems to encourage new laws to restrict RV parking on public streets. SPP42 never comes right out and says why this is needed, except as a tool to remove people sleeping RVs from their vehicles permanently. It implies that there would be a reduced need for 72 hour tagging, since the city could now drive through the city, writing RV citations. Visitors staying in our city would need to get permits in order to park in San Luis Obispo; note that these permits would not automatically be granted, but would be given out based on an evaluation of the visitor! What kind of evaluation? This sounds ominous and unfriendly to me. The number of permits and times would be LIMITED. It also says that the reason for this restriction is to remove long term RV parking on city streets and homeless people sleeping in their RVs. Most of the homeless that I know sleep in their CARS (if not the creeks) and do not own an RV. Yes, it says all this and more! Please read the bottom of page B1 -14 carefully. NEW ABILITY TO CLOSE ENTIRE SLO CITY STREETS TO ALL PARKING WHEN THE HOMELESS MOVE IN: I oppose the proposal on page B1 -15 item 2) that proposes to give the Police Chief unchecked power to close select city streets to all parking under extreme circumstances. I assume that the "extreme circumstances" he is referring to is the recent situation on Prado where numerous homeless parked overnight when they had nowhere else to go? Again, allowing 5 lucky homeless lottery winners to park at Prado will be justification for clamping down on all the other homeless who have nowhere else to go. Paragraph 3) on the same page warns the SLO 4 City Council to be prepared for "objections from residents who believe that suicter regulations are unnecessary" - I am one such resident. INCREASE THE PARKING FROM 5 VEHICLES TO 6: The site map clearly shows room for 6 vehicles in the Pilot SPP, yet only 5 will be allowed. Also, page B1 -10 at the top of the page in section a) indicates that the parking lot can SAFELY accommodate up to 6 total vehicles. This will make a big difference for the I person who gets the 6th spot, but will not materially affect the success of the Pilot SPP, in my opinion [page B1 -1, Report-in -Brief section at bottom of page]. CAPSLO had originally proposed 25 vehicles, and the program has been whittled down to 5! How about 1 more? Make it 6 please. PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION: WHERE SHOULD I GO IF I AM HOMELESS AND PRADO IS FULL OR WILL NOT TAKE ME? The city still needs to answer the question: Where should I go if I am homeless? The answer is NOT Prado DAY Center (its a day center). Maxine Lewis fills up and the Overflow does not accept single men; a large number of our homeless are men. The City's answer cannot be: you are breaking the law and you should leave and go back to wherever you came from. Since the city controls every aspect of our lives, it must answer this question. Despite Chief Gesell's protests to the contrary, SLO has outlawed being homeless. Humans have to sleep to survive (ie, if you don't sleep, you will die - just like breathing), and if every spot the homeless sleep in (ie, creek bed, car, RV) is against the law, you have essentially outlawed homelessness. To argue otherwise is disengenuous. Its not that different from outlawing breathing: you can't stop people from breathing, but you can ticket them for it. STOP KNOCKING ON THE VEHICLES OF HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT: The policy by the SLO Police Department of banging on doors and if nobody answers, then they tag it with a notice to move 500 feet within 72 hours. Alternatively, if they answer the knock, they receive an "Overnight Camping" violation. This policy encourages people to not open their doors to police when they knock. In my opinion, knocking on the doors of vehicles in the middle of the night without probably cause of a crime (except for sleeping) should stop; instead, knock on their doors in the morning (say lam or 8am) instead. Scaring potentially unstable citizens in the middle of the night is NOT wise. Also, ticketing RVs creates fines that the homeless cannot pay, causing them to lose their RV to fines, and causing them to move into the creek camps. ILL - DEFINED ISSUES STILL OUT THERE (PETS, VIDEO CAMERAS, OVERNIGHT SUPERVISION, RV BATHROOMS): There are a number of ill- defined issues that are not addressed in SPP42. Among the most glaring are that there will not be a supervisor there during the time of the program, so what is to prevent unauthorized campers from entering the facility or the authorized vehicles? etc. In my experience, parking without full -time supervision may be problematic. When acting as overnight host at the Overflow, I have called CAPSLO and the Police on numerous occasions. Without this support, bad things may have happened. The incident are too numerous to detail here, but it would appear that the Prado parking lot is a less controlled environment than the inside of a Church, yet we REQUIRE somebody to be awake all night at the Church. A possible solution would be to use volunteers overnight in much the same way that they are used at the overflow, but I believe that a supervisor (volunteer or CAPSLO) must be onsite during the active hours of the SPP. Video cameras hooked to the internet and monitored at Maxine Lewis should be MANDATORY, especially if there is no overnight supervision. Also, I believe that having pets may be a bad idea as well. At the homeless shelter overflow, pets in vehicles on Church property are not allowed due to liability issues. Also, Prado Day Center itself does not allow pets on its facility during operating hours. I personally assisted with giving birth to a litter of pups during one of the Prado's "Warming Station" nights. Being an RVer, I know that poorly maintained RV bathroom facilities can be a problem (think leaking pipes or an overflowing tank), so clean -up facilities need to be ready in the event of RV spillage. I agree that the 5 lucky SPP family groups need valid driver's license, registration and insurance; however, the current SLO Police Department ticketing for overnight sleeping effort puts severe financial pressure on the ability of the homeless to pay for insurance and registration. It is expensive to register RVs due to the weight fee included with California state registration, and I have no idea how they find an insurance company to insurance their vehicle without an address or a job. Obtaining and keeping insurance my be a difficult hurdle, and I did not see it addressed in SPP42. YOU CALL IT 40 TONS OF TRASH - HOW MUCH OF IT WAS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOME HOMELESS PERSON (WHO COULDN'T CARRY IT AROUND ON THEIR BACK ?) The report notes repeatedly that 40 tons of refuse was disposed of by the city along creeks in 2011. I wonder how much of that material were personal posessions of the homeless? The homeless cannot carry all their personal posessions on their back all day, so they must leave them in their camp homes while looking for work or seeking food. I am skeptical about the scape- goating that comes from this 40 ton figure. I personally know several homeless people that had their personal posessions (know as refuse to the City of SLO) taken in this manner. I wonder where the 40 ton figure came from - did the Parks Department weigh all of it, or was it an estimate. Police Chief Gesell wields that figure like a sword, and uses it as an indictment of all homeless people in SLO. I believe that the homeless do need to properly dispose of their garbage, and if they don't, the litter laws should be enforced. ITS THE ECONOMY, STUPID! Attachment 5 on page B 1 -2 5 shows that calls for service with "Transient" increased when the Great Recession hit the California economy. Yet Police Chief Gesell told me personally that none of our local homelessness was caused by the weak economy, but instead was a lifestyle choice on the part of the homeless. I guess the rise in complaints was just coincidence? Come on, Police Chief! Also, he claimed that CAPSLO Director Dee Torres confirmed this statistic. I put a call in to Ms. Torres, but I have not been able to confirm this with her yet. I'M CONFUSED: HOW CAN CAPSLO GUARANTEE SPOTS FOR THE WILLING? AREN'T WE LIMITED TO 5 SPOTS? On page B1 -9 of the Pilot SPP under "Target Clients ", it states under item 2. that "those who are willing to actively participate in the case management program will receive a GUARANTEED PARKING SPACE until they are housed ". How can this be guaranteed with only 5 spaces? I MAY BE DUMB, BUT I'M NOT SUPID: Sorry, but the statistic on page B 1 -10 that " CAPSLO has a 100% success rate transitioning people who remain in case management into permanent housing." is misleading, self - serving, or both. The "100% success rate" will always be 100 %, since a client either drops out, stay in, or gets housing - voila! 100% success rate every time - by definition. Logically, the statement will always be true. How about a better statistic, such as percent of those in case management that drop out, percent of those in case management that obtain permanent housing, and among those who get permanent housing are once again returned to homelessness and CAPSLO case management. HOW DID OCCUPY SLO SEEM TO GET A PASS (POLITICIANS), AND THE HOMELESS NEVER DO? How many days did Occupy SLO get to sleep downtown on public property without getting cited for "Overnight Camping "? I recall reading that the last of the encamping just packed up and left recently. **#*# k*#* *4 * *R #4 * *4MR *•R * #R # *114k�RWR *R# #ERR * #4 CONTACT INFORMATION Tim Waag home (805) 544 -2109 cell (805) 440 -9144 (no answering service) email: WaagDiver(Q)gmail.com (general) email: BeveridgeFlyerCaD-gmail.com (trips) email: SalineVaIleySaltTram CcDg mail. com (salt tram) Waag and Co. Phone (805) 783 -2300 Fax j805) 544 -4215 Post Office Box 5060 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 email: Tim(cDWaa4andCo.com www.WaagAndCo.com ABOUT WAAG AND CO. Waag and Co. is an Employment Law and Human Resources Consulting Services firm, working exclusively with employers. This message (and any attached materials) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document (and any attachments) in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this material is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or reply by e-mail, and delete the original message and any attachments. Dee Torres Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo Co., Inc. Homeless Services Director Phone: (805) 541- 6351 "822 Fax: (805) 546 -8479 www.capslo.org ® Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com /capsio This transmission is confidential and intended solely for the person or organization to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by email or call (805) 544 -4355. Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: safe parking pilot program From: Elaina Geltner Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 2:34 PM To: Ashbaugh, John Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael; Marx, Jan; Carter, Andrew; Carpenter, Dan; 'ksmith @slocity.org.' Subject: safe parking pilot program Dear Council Members and others, Re: item on March 20 City Council agenda that recommends approval of a proposal by Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. (CAPSL0) to implement a safe parking pilot program at the Prado Day Center. I would like to encourage you to find a way to begin providing safe overnight parking for our homeless people in the City of San Luis Obispo. Since I do not consider myself qualified to evaluate the proposal before you, I would simply defer to the expert opinions of Staff and Legal. I do, however, strongly support solutions, and programs of this sort seem to be working well in other cities, like Santa Barbara. Thank you for the work you do! Rev. Elaina Geltner, Director QuietStar Center for Transformation 11549 Los Osos Valley Road, Suite 109 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Phone: 805.783.2662 Fax: 805.783.2772 www.QuietStar.org Sign up for QuietStar's Email Newsletter f ci F. rrt7il "•���rrSsF- �iir�ti yc:; �.,�an ir�_�s,t Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Safe Parking Program From: Ashbaugh, John Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 2:00 PM To: Dee Torres Cc: Codron, Michael; Hines, Charlie; John Fowler Subject: FW: Safe Parking Program want to be sure that you received this communication from John Fowler as soon as I did... John was just appointed to our Planning Commission. I'm ccing this to John as well with a couple of suggestions for him: 1) Please check email for Dan Carpenter (should be dcarpent @slocity.org); 2) Please be assured that Community Action Partnership, whose board I am on as City representative, does have a working agreement with the City for Prado Day Center. The proposal on Tuesday would add the "safe parking area" feature to the agreement, with the conditions stated (or as revised by our Council). These conditions were developed by a fairly large group of City staff, Community Action staff and volunteers. The City's advisory bodies will be consulted as this program is evaluated and, depending on its success, expanded to other sites. One of the questions that will be answered during this monitoring period is whether or not the limit of 5 spaces is appropriate. It's a start, however — and we do need to start somewhere. I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, or earlier — and feel free to call on me if you'd like to chat about this further. Thanks! From: John Fowler Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:55 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carter, Andrew; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; dcarpendar @slocit .org Subject: Safe Parking Program I want to encourage and congratulate you on tackling and acting to establish a Pilot Safe Parking Program for our City. Clearly, not only do we need to address this for the safety of those who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of having to park /live in their cars, but it needs our immediate attention for the safety and nuisance it possess to the community as a whole. I think working to hammer out an agreement with SLOCAPS in the short run is a great idea. I recommend you consider addressing separately the Prado Road parking problem with how these managed overnight parking sites will work, while they are certainly related they are two separate concerns with different urgencies to solve. I would encourage you to not only hold open Council Meeting, with the traditional staff reports and public comments but to work to bring all the various stake holders together for the best solution, likely with a professional facilitator ( possible city staff could do this) to guide the process. A collaboration of the various City Depts (Police, Fire, Parks & Rec, etc) with Advisory Committees ( Housing Committees on Homelessness ), and Citizens, etc. will allow us to formula the plan best suited for our City as all have different paradigms which would be valuable to hear and consider. There are no easy answers and having those closest to the problems weighing in is critical. I would also encourage you to try and expand the Pilot Parking at the Prado Center beyond 5 overnight spaces ( in addition to finding other sites). I understand fire would like a turning radius requirement, while Fire is an important consideration, so is finding the overnight spaces beyond 5 as this is nowhere near enough ... so think outside of the box and ask Fire to help with alternatives ... such as specific parking requirements where vehicles must park so as to be able to exit quickly, working on possible second accesses for fire equipment, or mitigatinr, measures which would reduce fire spreading or fire control measures. Challenge Fire to think outside the box on how to accommodate more vehicles. SLOCAPS need to consider monitoring these parking lots more than twice a night to ensure everyone's safety, especially those overnight guests. Maybe Police could do a nightly visit as well. In addition to tenant agreements with SLOCAPS to enter their programs, there needs to be strict guidelines and enforcement of parking lot rules and someone needs to monitor compliance routinely. Good Luck, John Fowler Very Concerned Citizen March 19, 2012 RE: Prado Road Safe Parking Dear Councilmembers, I am one of the owners of the nine acre parcel at the corner of Prado and Elks Lane. We currently have two tenants, Uhaul and FirstSolar for carpool parking. We have owned the Property since the early 90's. Over the years we have done our best to cooperate with the Police Dept., Code Enforcement, tenants and neighbors to address issues concerning trespass, illegal dumping, unauthorized onsite parking, security and vandalism. In fact, at the encouragement of the Police Dept. we installed a perimeter fence which alleviated many of these problems for the better part of four years. Unfortunately, the relative tranquility and equilibrium has vanished in recent months as these problems have become worse than we ever experienced. In fact, a new critical safety issue has emerged as well. Specifically, the new phenomenon of illegal camping and /or convoy daytime parking by large recreational vehicles and trailers along our fence line on Prado Road has created a dangerous mixture of visual impairment for Prado drivers while substantially increasing indiscriminate pedestrian crossings of Prado. The high rate of speed customary for vehicles traveling west on Prado or exiting 101, combined with this new heavy pedestrian activity, unfortunately many of whom seem impaired, makes an accident likely, especially after dark. We have already received reports of close calls attributed to blindness and thus lower reaction time. The dangerous conditions are so prevalent, on a recent property inspection our insurance carrier inquired whether the property used for this RV parking was within our property lines or the City right of way. The obvious concern was responsibility for monitoring the users and liability for the inevitable accident. We have been reluctant to voice concerns or make waves. We are torn because we support and understand that the Prado Day Center is providing an essential and valuable service to the community and we do not want to make life more difficult for those trying hard but legitimately down on their luck. On the other hand, however, in the past our property and tenants have suffered threats of retaliation and vandalism at the hands of the other unsavory element of the "lifestyle" transient crowd when we have identified ourselves by being justifiably proactive concerning legitimate abuses. Therefore, we can not risk exposing our property and the safety of our tenants by making an appearance. We need help and would appreciate Council assistance in addressing these concerns. Sincerely, Kevin W. McGurty 461 -0548