Dear members of Goleta City Council, I am reaching out to you as one of the many concerned residents impacted by the proliferation of
illegal
camping
on
Phelps
Road
between
Cannon
Green
Dr.
and
Pacific
Oaks
Road.
Below are my comments on the specific policy questions before you on October 7: 2. Regulatory options A. Encampment Ordinance Amendments Policy Questions: 1. Should the City’s ordinance incorporate some or all of the elements of the Governor’s Model
Ordinance?
I support the City having a policy to always provide persons access to shelter or information
on
how
to
receive
services.
However,
acceptance
of
those
services
or
availability
of
a
shelter
bed
should
not
prevent
enforcement
of
existing
laws.
Additionally,
exceptions
should
be
made
for
repeat
offenders
who
have
been
offered
services
multiple
times
and
have
consistently
rejected
those
services.
In addition, I do not support language that limits camping prohibitions within 200 feet of public
property
or
posted
notice
-
illegal
camping
on
any
public
property
must
be
promptly
corrected.
2. In light of the Grants Pass decision, how should GMC 12.01.030(B) be amended? Should
the
entire
provision
be
removed?
I support the language amendment as follows: Absent exigent circumstances related to immediate threats to the public health, safety, or welfare,
the
provisions
of
this
section
will
not
be
enforced
against
indigent
homeless
persons
sitting,
lying,
or
sleeping
on
City-owned
public
property,
except
in
high
fire
areas,
when
no
alternative
shelter
or
publicly
available
campsite
is
available
in
accordance
with
the
holding
in
Martin
v.
City
of
Boise
(9th
Cir.
2019)
920
F.3d
584
.
In this case, the ordinance is in reference to the mere action of sleeping or resting, as opposed
to
illegally
camping,
and
I
do
not
oppose
this
basic
human
function.
B. Vehicular Dwelling Ordinance Amendments Policy Question: 1. Should the City add more indicia of vehicle dwelling to GMC 10.04.040? I generally do not support limiting ordinances with “specific indicia,” unless the phrase “included
but
not
limited
to”
or
“such
as”
are
included
in
the
ordinance.
Also, I am curious why specific indicia would be written into an ordinance rather than providing
them
in
a
training
bulletin
for
PD?
Writing
specific
examples
in
an
ordinance
would
be
limiting
in
the
event
of
innovations
in
illegal
camping,
and
amending
an
ordinance
takes
time.
2. Does the City want to keep the concept of towing? The language either needs to be eliminated
or,
if
kept,
factors
under
the
Community
Caretaking
Doctrine
will
need
to
be
added.
I support keeping language giving the option to tow. Additionally 72-hours in the event of illegal
vehicular
camping
is
too
much
time:
24 hours
is
sufficient.
A
person
does
not
need
a
72-hour
window
to
remove
a
vehicle
being
used
for
illegal
camping.
All
72-hours
does
is
prolong
the
problem
and
give
people
free
camping
for
72 hours.
4. Enforcement Options Policy Questions 1. Should there be any changes to the existing enforcement framework? Yes, as stated earlier, reducing the time frame to 24 hours. This is sufficient time to take down
a
tent
or
drive
a
vehicle
away.
2. Should the City start utilizing the administrative citation with a forgiveness component against
individuals
who
set
up
encampments
or
dwell
in
their
vehicles
in
violation
of
the
City’s
laws?
If
Council
supports
the
use
of
the
administrative
citation
process,
staff
would
develop
a
program
in
collaboration
with
the
Sheriff’s
Office
and
begin
this
enforcement
mechanism
as
soon
as
possible.
Though not included in the staff report, at the August 12 meeting, the HISC received guidance
from
the
Safe
Parking
program
that
an
enforcement
component
is
sometimes
necessary
in
order
for
persons
to
accept
service.
I support a forgiveness component for first time offenses. If a person actually enrolls in a program
and
in
the
event
of
vehicular
camping
relocates
to
a
Safe
Parking
site.
3. Should any of the components of the Governor’s Model Ordinance on encampment clearing
be
incorporated
into
the
City’s
encampment
clearance
policy?
Public
Works
Open
Space
Division
staff
recommends
Council
allow
staff
to
shorten
its
current
72-hour
noticing
policy
to
48 hours
and
reduce
the
value
of
personal
belongings
from
$100
to
$50
to
be
eligible
for
storage
and
reclamation.
As stated earlier, I support reducing it to 24 hours, which is plenty of time to pack up a tent
or
drive
a
car/bus/RV
away.
Large RVs camp here at night - our neighborhood is not an RV park.
This truck regularly camps out directly across from me. Imagine coming home to this van at night.
Stills from a video taken on a Friday night. I counted 8 vehicles just on the Coastal Zone sections
of
Phelps
where
no
signage
exists.
I’ll
point
out
the
yellow
bus
that
regularly
camps
in
the
area
with
the
owner
often
sitting
outside
of
his
bus
on
a
camping
chair.
Seen from my bedroom. This van regularly camps here. The yellow bus, seen from
my
kitchen.
As we’ve mentioned previously the number of vehicles used for camping has gotten out of control.
The
photos
above
are
examples
of
what
occurs
on
a
regular
basis.
More
recently
people are parking their cars more haphazardly, facing all sorts of directions in the late night hours.
As I’ve said time and time again I do not feel safe walking outside my own street at night. My guests
have
expressed
discomfort
parking
there
when
visiting
me.
This
situation
needs
to
be
brought
back
under
control.
I recognize the challenges of addressing homelessness and I applaud the City for its efforts to help
persons
experiencing
homelessness.
I
am
a
strong
supporter
of
our
homeless
service
provider
community,
and
am
in
favor
of
housing
first
and
harm
reduction
programs.
However,
I
also
recognize
the
negative
impacts
that
homelessness
can
have
on
communities
and
neighborhoods.
Compassion
should
not
come
at
the
expense
of
safe
neighborhoods,
and
that
is
the
point
in
which
we
find
ourselves
here.
- Liz Stotts, Emily Lane resident