Front Page  »  

San Luis Obispo needs to do better on safe parking for homeless

August 9, 2023

OPINION by LYNN HAMILTON

An open letter to the San Luis Obispo City Council:

I am writing with deep concern about the insensitive, inept and insufficient means of informing residents of the Palm Street neighborhood of the city’s plans to move its safe parking program to 1700 Palm Street.

I have owned and lived at 1650 Palm Street for 25 years, and I did not know there was a 1700 block of Palm Street. I am very much opposed not only to the plan to move the safe parking program to my street, but also to object to the lack of transparency, lack of opportunity for public comment and the very short time period for notification. We had only a week to respond.

I also did not receive a postcard at my address; I heard about the issue from my neighbor, who took a picture and sent it to me. The news coverage in the Tribune on July 29 indicated that the rotational program would involve faith and community groups volunteering their sites for new, rotational safe parking program. The coverage said nothing about closing off a city street to create an interim safe parking lot.

There is nothing noted in the City Code about turning a residential through street into a closed parking lot, which the “temporary closure of a portion of Palm Street” seems to indicate.  Should this application be approved, I plan to appeal, and may also consider a lawsuit.

My house and my neighbor’s houses on Palm Street are in an R-2 Zone. The City Code notes:

C. Accessory Use in Residential Zones. If located in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, safe parking is only allowed when accessory to a public assembly or religious assembly facility. Safe parking is prohibited as a primary use in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones and in all applicable zones on properties that contain residential uses as the primary use.

City Code also notes the following:

4. Neighborhood Relations Plan. A neighborhood relations plan shall be provided for each safe parking facility location to address any complaints in a timely manner, including consistency with any adopted good neighbor policy.

If sending out a post card to a few people constitutes your neighborhood relations plan, I have zero confidence that any of the other aspects of the City Code with respect to the safe parking plan will be handled in a competent manner.

As much as I object to Palm Street being used for a Safe Parking area, I even more strongly object to the manner in which this policy is being handled. If a homeowner wants to cut down a tree, run a business out of their home, rent their home as an short-term rental, or add a second story to their property, there is a notice posted on the property with a comment period and a date for a public hearing.

This change of use of Palm Street is much more significant than any of the minor change examples noted here, yet there is no opportunity for public comment or environmental review. There are nearly 15 houses on Palm Street between California Boulevard and Grand Avenue, and many of them are owner-occupied. I’m sure that all homeowners and residents in the area would appreciate an opportunity for public comment.

Since the postcard noted that Kyle is the contact for this issue, I have the following concerns and questions:

1) What does “temporary” mean?  How long and how much of Palm Street will be closed?

2) What are the times for the safe parking program? How will you ensure that vehicles are only there in the allowed times?

3) How many vehicles will be allowed? There is no way that 20 vehicles, the number in the Railroad District, will fit on the boundary of the Vets Hall portion of the street.

4) What kind of security and oversight will be provided?

5) Is there a plan for trash, water and toilet provision?

6) Many events occur at the Vets Hall in the evenings, and Vets Hall patrons park adjacent to their building – how have you addressed this with the Vets Hall as you eliminate their overflow parking?

7) Has the city considered that these RVs will be very visible from Monterey Street as you approach downtown from the north? There are hundreds of hotel rooms along Monterey Street and many tourists walk down Monterey to downtown. Palm Street and the Vets Hall are not hidden from view.

Press from the New Times regarding the Railroad Parking program indicates that the city and CAPSLO have not done a sufficient job in managing trash, noise and other disruptions in their safe parking program. Even more disturbing is the continued band-aid approach to housing unsheltered community members.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in removing encampments on city and state property, creating barely suitable alternatives for RV parking (e.g. the Oklahoma site where several people have died).

Transitioning our unsheltered neighbors to permanent housing has had very limited success.

SLO City needs to do better.  But closing off a city street is and parking RVS on a residential street is not an example of doing better. Trying to slide this temporary safe parking program in via covert administrative fiat is even worse.

I am very discouraged by the city’s handling of this matter, and hope that you seek more input from residents when such issues arise in the future. I will appeal this program should it be approved, and encourage my neighbors to do the same.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

1) What is to prevent these parking spaces from becoming “free tourist boondock RV parking”?

2) Why don’t the homeless move to the Great Plains or Midwest, where housing is affordable? I can’t afford to live in Santa Barbara, so I have the right to be homeless there, because I once lived there and I like it there?


35

It really doesn’t matter where you put the program city residents will complain whether they’re in town or not.

Kansas Ave created a flow of the homeless crowd between them and downtown,I can’t speak for everyone who lives out on that stretch of highway 1 but we have had a few come down off the highway trying doors and getting high.

Pushing them from one corner to the next in this town is not the answer,it’s clearly not working and the residents are tired.

The city needs to throw the effort that they put into bike lanes into the homeless population and fix this mess now.


41

If you make it easy for folks to throw in the towel and give up… they will… stop feeding homelessness and it will go away….


35

I don’t know the exact location on Palm street this is being discussed. I do know that the vets center is where many people are waiting between 530 -6am for the veterans bus to LA va hospital. Many times they alone and there are senior female veterans waiting alone for that bus in the winter darkness.


Don’t tell me how safe that is unless you would be OK with your mother/wife/sister/daughter being one of those people waiting in the darkness next to a homeless encampment.

Read the news about oakland/la/San Francisco. Even advocates are changing their tune. It’s out of control!!!


40

What is the number – 10million unfilled jobs in the country and the homeless population is larger than ever? Something’s seriously wrong.


But to the writer of the letter, two things: 1) the people In charge of the city government will always skirt their own rules when it’s convenient for them. Few people watch them closely enough to catch them sneaking crap through and 2) they don’t care about you or your problems. Your job is just to pay taxes and shut up!


41

Why not the City Hall parking lot. The City employees don’t typically arrive before 7AM and are generally gone by 7PM. Plus the City Hall employees are allowed to park in the two nearby parking structures for free during working hours. (And I doubt anyone checks if they park at other times). Or how about the Corporation’s parking lot directly across the street from 40 Prado Rd. That seems like an ideal location. The lot can be managed by 40 Prado staff. There is plenty of parking for employees inside the gated area as well. What is going to stop the City/staff/City Council from putting the Safe Parking Program on any city street—say, around Mitchell Park. How about the street adjacent to Meadow Park and the park’s parking lot. Why not the access road at Laguna Lake Park. Basically the way this location has been created means that the City can do anything they please– even in front of your house. I wonder how it would go if the City (council) decided to put the Safe Parking Program along San Luis Drive. I mean it’s not the resident’s street. You know how it would go. There wouldn’t be a snowball’s chance in hell they’d do it. But if you’re just the average shmuck, then good luck.


75

I know people who live near the Meadow Park Church (The Unitarian Church) and they say they are getting the parking rules changed on Meadow st.to 4 hour parking because of the situation and people who stay all day due to the safe parking at railroad square that people just come to Meadow Park during the day from. They say they feel like the street is an RV park now. They wanted to get the rules changed city wide regarding the RV parking, but the city is reluctant for some reason to do that. There is a gas-station that sells alcohol less than a block away from the church and the Unitarians are giving out free food, etc. to attract as many homeless to the neighborhood as they can. They say the street is being used like an RV park and they’re tired of it. Mostly due to the Unitarian Church.


The people I have spoken with really don’t like what that Church is doing to the neighborhood. I wonder if the parking rules changing will help much.


4

The city and county have spent untold millions, and uncountable hours/days/weeks/months/years on this problem, with nothing fruitful being accomplished, and simply relocating the problem. I suppose they can now claim, they cleaned up the homeless problem at the train depot!


Meanwhile, Dan DeVaul is in the back of the classroom, frantically waving his hand to answer the question, but ignored.


These same millions of tax dollars currently being thrown out like yesterday’s trash, would have rebuilt the DeVaul ranch to fully comply with city/county/state/federal housing regulations, and included a fine large secure parking area for trailers and motor-homes. Dan has been trying for decades to help the homeless and destitute, while hamstrung by the very people and agencies that should be his most enthusiastic support.


We must ask, why?


66

I had not heard about the safe parking site moving to near the Vets Hall on Palm – I don’t think city council members will see this comment, but I fully support this decision.


I can understand that for people like this letters author the site may be an inconvenience. It does suck for them. No one likes negative externalities, however it’s the price of living almost anywhere – highways, commerical areas, airports, homeless shelters, fire stations, etc. all have to go somewhere.


What I find most disagreeable is the implication that anyone gets veto power – that a tiny minority can manipulate the levers of public input to permanently delay or halt the development of a community need. There is no mitigation the city could do that would satisfy those who feel entitled have full control over property that isn’t theirs. There are no alternatives that are proposed, implying that it’s someone else’s can to kick or that we shouldn’t do anything to reduce the impact of homelessness throughout the city. No selflessness, everyone should suffer (all city residents and the homeless trying to get on their feet) because an “I got mine” attitude. Acquisition of a veto to every homeowner isnt democracy, it’s institution capture.


-97

The writer of the article has valid points, and to trivialize her concerns about the nightly occupation of her neighborhood with the cavalier sentiment of “it sucks for them” while categorizing it as an inconvenience and comparing it to living next to a fire station or highway illustrates a lack of insight. Neighborhoods matter, and so do the people who live in them. The homeless population may deserve compassion and respect, but not carte blanche. The people in homes in the neighborhoods that are directly impacted (the so-called “tiny minority”) should absolutely have a say because they are directly impacted! They are the ones who worked and paid and maintained their property, who will be walking past human waste/trash/needles, changing their schedule to not go outside after a certain time, keeping their children from riding bikes on the street, etc. People in homes shouldn’t feel guilty for not wanting a homeless encampment (nightly or otherwise) in their neighborhood, next to their grocery store or behind a school, when they have been shown time and time again to be unsanitary, drug filled and often dangerous (take a look at the Morro Bay police blotter for examples of what is going on along Quintana Road in MB). Of course this is not to say every un-housed person in a safe parking area contributes negatively; however, if the government is going to subsidize and provide places for the un-housed, there needs to be accountability from both the provider and the recipients. Once there are examples of successful, clean, safe places (safe for both the un-housed and the housed) then the arguments against them will decline.


87

Great comment, thank you for the reply – I like when people read my comments and provide through counter arguments.


When I used other examples of negative external developments I hoped to point out that although they’re not all the same, they all are necessary to go somewhere (a homeless shelter/parking site is worse than a fire station I agree, a highway can be bad for your health even when you’re inside, and is obviously a more disruptive development if your house needs demolition to make space.)


I’m acutely aware of how locally damaging homelessness can be (the NYT article “A Sandwhich Shop, a Tent City and an American Crisis” should be on even the most ardent right-winger reading list). I feel empathy for those who will be impacted more heavily by it in the coming month, but I could only muster “sucks for them” – admittedly a bit rude, because it’s something that everyone will be impacted by if the safe parking location doesn’t go somewhere. I would be frustrated if I were the author, but I hope I would see the reality that if not me, someone else will have to deal with it – likely many more if the problem isn’t concentrated and managed by social workers.


The Vets Hall seems like a good location, if not there, where? Anywhere we select will create an inconvenience to someone, pick somewhere miles from any residence or business and you’ll simply have paid to build an empty lot.


You’re correct that more needs to be done – the homeless can be a difficult population. Safe parking sites can and should become cleaner, safer, and more accountable. But the letter isn’t about mitigation, recommendations, or arguments for improvement. I’m sorry to see, but it’s about just saying “No.”


-45

Please send in some pics of the safe rooms in your house that you are providing full of unhoused visitors.


46

If they were in my house, they wouldn’t be, ya know, unhoused…


-37

How many homeless or “unsheltered neighbors” should the City of San Luis Obispo have to provide shelter or some type of space for like the Safe Parking Program. I truly want to know what you think the number should be. 100, 150, 200, 250.. as many as show up?


42

Ideally of course, zero. Legally the amount is actually unlimited since 9th Circuit Court prohibits the removal of the homeless unless there is ample shelter – something not technically possible – we likely share a distaste for that ruling. Realistically, and my actual answer… About 250-300, which is the number of people unsheltered according to the 2022 Point-in-Time Survey.


And of course as I’ve always said, safe parking is a temporary solution, what we need is shelters, transitional housing, and affordable housing for when they get a entry level job and are starting the climb towards the American Dream.


-34

I imagine the SLO response and solution to be “Build more bike lanes.” Talk about out of touch and delusional; SLO City Council has no clue what they are doing and clearly have personal agendas.


79

“Build more bike lanes” that was perfect


17
1 2