POINT ARENA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM: IX B
MEETING DATE: 8/26/2025
TITLE
Discussion of Safe Parking at City Hall
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report and direct staff.
ANALYSIS
Many jurisdictions in California have instituted “Safe Parking Programs” to address the increasing number of people living in their vehicles. Without such programs, individuals using vehicles for shelter often face parking citations, break-ins, and unsafe or unsanitary living conditions. Safe Parking Programs provide a safe and legal place for vehicle dwellers to park overnight and typically operate in collaboration with social service agencies, nonprofit and faith-based organizations, and law enforcement.
These programs generally include participant screening, access to restrooms, nightly monitoring, and case management services that help individuals transition from vehicles into stable housing. Larger cities are better able to absorb the costs and risks of these programs. Examples of established programs exist in Union City, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Eugene, Oregon.
While simply designating parking spaces may appear to be a straightforward solution, experience from other California jurisdictions shows that “parking only” models create significant challenges. For a small city with limited resources, these challenges are magnified:
Liability & Risk Exposure: Without a partner organization to manage the site, the City would assume full legal responsibility. Any incidents (accidents, crimes, or health emergencies) could expose the City to lawsuits.
Sanitation & Public Health: Portable restrooms and trash service are essential to maintain sanitary conditions. Without these, sites deteriorate quickly, creating public health risks and generating community complaints.
Security & Enforcement: Oversight is needed to ensure compliance with rules (quiet hours, no illegal activity, no long-term squatting). The City lacks the staff and financial resources to provide ongoing monitoring or security.
Community Impacts: Concerns about noise, trash, and safety have been reported by neighbors of these types of facilities. Without structured management, these impacts are more likely and difficult to address. Given the proximity to City Hall and the Senior Center, it is unlikely participants would refrain from using those facilities, creating additional strain on staff and operations.
Lack of Pathways to Housing: A “parking only” model risks becoming a long-term vehicle encampment, with no progress toward housing solutions. Programs are most effective when linked to case management and supportive services that provide a pathway out of vehicle residency.
Resource Constraints: A small city with a lean staff and limited budget has fewer options to provide the sanitation, security, and outreach required—even for a minimal program.
Safe Parking Programs are therefore relatively complex and require planning, funding, and partnerships. Given the City’s limited resources and its focus on essential infrastructure projects such as the wastewater treatment plant and sewer replacement, staff recommend that any Safe Parking effort be coordinated and operated through community-based effort- whether nonprofit, faith-based, or another organization— rather than the City itself.
FISCAL IMPACT
2019 estimates for annual project maintenance have reported ~ $10,000.
Discussions with community members, County Sheriff, CIRA, research and preparation of this document = ~$600 (9 hours of staff time).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Community Emails
2. Safe Parking: Insights from a Review of National Programs
3. Responding to Homelessness, CalCities
4. 2021 June & July City Council Staff Reports for Safe/Overnight Parking
CITY MANAGER SIGNATURE
_________________________________
Molly C. Haviland, City Manager
To: City of Point Arena
From: Erike Young, Deputy General Manager
CA Intergovernmental Risk Authority
Date: August 25, 2025
RE: Safe Parking Programs
Per our phone conversation, I am providing some additional information for the City Council as part of its consideration of adopting a Safe Parking Program.
As discussed, CIRA is not aware of any member that has adopted a Safe Parking Program; and if a program is adopted, there are not any specific exclusions in the CIRA Memorandum of Coverage (MOC) that would bar coverage if the City was to adopt such a program. Any claim would need to be evaluated based on the injury/damages being claimed.
The adoption of a Safe Parking Program exposes the City to increased risk of liability claims both from those participating in the program and the public, who could claim injury to themselves or damage to their property. There is also the potential for injury to employees from a workplace violence perspective, especially when working alone at night.
Finally, there is also a potential risk of damage to property and sanitation concerns. In general, most of our members work with non-profit organizations to manage these types of programs, as they have the expertise and insurance to help mitigate the risk for the City.
This may not be an option for the City, but it should be explored before the City adopts their own program.
The following are potential risk exposures as well as mitigations that should be considered:
Risk Exposure Mitigation
• Participants injuring
another participant or
stealing from another
• Potential injury to
minors including sexual
abuse and molestation
claims
• Injury to the public
• Injury to employees
• Require screening process that would
also include assumption of risk and
signing a waiver releasing City from
liability if injured or property damaged
• Installation of cameras
• Established rules of
acceptable/unacceptable behavior
• Not allowing minors
• Not allowing employees to work alone
• Increased security patrols
• Mental health services and counseling
• Eviction process
• Sanitation issues –
Trash,
Bathrooms/Showers
• Larger trash containers and more
frequent pick-ups
• Portable restrooms/shower facilities
• Damage to property • Installation of cameras
• Increased security patrols
While most of the mitigations noted above may have been implemented at a low cost, there will be considerable staff time to implement and monitor the program. Employee safety is our biggest concern and the City should ensure that staff feel safe. Although not specifically noted above, the City is already required to have a written workplace violence prevention program, and if the new program is implemented, the plan will need to be updated to address the risk exposures noted.
August 25, 2025
Point Arena City Council Members,
I am not a Pt. Arena resident, but I have been volunteering with Coastal Seniors for approximately 17 years, both at Druids Hall and at the Veterans Building/Pt. Arena City Hall.
Although I think the Safe Parking Proposal is very well intentioned, I question its effectiveness.
Simply declaring parking spaces a “safe area” does not make it so. There is no vetting of the persons parking, no agreement to prohibit drug and alcohol use, no permits or fences to limit access and no patrol of the area unless officers happen to be in the area. As many of you are aware, the presence of the Sheriff’s substation did not deter the thief who did many thousands of dollars of damage to the buses that provide senior transportation to medical and other appointments.
There is a real possibility that the women you are trying to protect may not be able to use the parking spaces. There is no mechanism to keep anyone who wants to park overnight from doing so. Once word gets out that there is free car camping adjacent to the California Coastal Monument you may have more people in cars than parking spaces and no consistent enforcement to limit the number of cars or to ensure that local women actually get a designated parking spot.
If this proposal truly offered safe parking in a secure and monitored spot that wasn’t likely to turn into crowded, messy, unregulated free coastal camping, I would happily support it. Given that the City of Pt. Arena does not have the staff or funding to oversee this project or to ensure the safety of those living in their cars, as well as the staff and clients of Coastal Seniors, it would be unwise to accept this proposal as it currently exists.
Sincerely,
Vera-Lee Kaiser
1 Christopher Weare, Ph.D.
President
Center for Homeless Inquiries
Lindsay McElwain
Daniel Schiele
Laila Waheed
University of Southern California
Sol Price School of Public Policy
Key Insights
• Providing safe parking lots for individuals living in their vehicles is a relatively new but growing response to homelessness.
• Evidence from existing programs indicates that they address a real community need. • Program models remain in flux as operators experiment with differing service modalities.
• While there have been instances of community resistance to safe parking lots and identifying appropriate lots can be a challenge, many lots open up quickly and maintain a positive relationship with their community.
• An important programmatic choice is whether parkers are only allowed to stay on the lot at night or can stay all day long. Longer hours are attractive to clients but create operational challenges.
• Case manager-led problem solving appears to be the most successful strategy for placing clients into permanent housing.
• Moving clients into housing remains a challenge. Rehousing rates are comparable to the rates achieved by street outreach programs. This comparison is inexact because street outreach programs most likely engage individuals with higher acuity.
This population is harder to serve but is also more likely to qualify for subsidized housing programs.
The Safe Parking Concept
Safe Parking programs are a relatively new program concept designed to help people experiencing homeless regain stable housing. They provide secure places for people sheltering in their vehicles to park and sleep overnight, provide basic sanitary services, and typically connect individuals to a range of social services. As such they combine elements of street outreach where they seek to engage and build a relationship with the unsheltered homeless and of emergency shelters where they provide individuals sanctuary from living on the streets.
The concept was pioneered by New Beginnings in Santa Barbara, California, which opened its first lot in 2004. Since then, the program has been adopted or tested by dozens of other communities.
Safe Parking: Insights from a
Review of National Programs
2 Nevertheless, because the program is new
and has not been sanctioned by federal
funders, little is known about how the
programs operate and their impacts.
This research sought to identify and interview
existing programs to improve our
understanding of how it works and how it
integrates into the broader homeless crisis
system. The research team identified
programs with a multi-pronged strategy. They
started with a list of programs that had
ordered a safe parking program manual distributed by Santa Barbara New Beginnings and then augmented the list with web searches, snowball sampling, and a list of communities identified by research teams at the University of California, San Diego and Rutgers University. 1 Programs that
volunteered to participate filled out a web survey and were interviewed.
This search identified 43 communities with safe parking programs, and the team was able to interview and survey 19 of them.2 As seen on the map these programs are primarily found on the west coast. This geographic bias may be a result of snowball sampling based on California communities. Nevertheless, web searches failed to find evidence of programs in other major cities. Safe parking, in addition, maybe primarily a west coast phenomenon because the mild climate makes sheltering in a vehicle year-round feasible, and these communities have particularly high rates of unsheltered homelessness.
Programs Meet an Identifiable Need
Research and the experience of surveyed programs indicate that safe parking addresses a genuine community need. Studies found that between 30% and 50% of unhoused individuals in West Coast cities now utilize their vehicles as a primary source of shelter (NLCHP, 2019).
Moreover, the needs of individuals sheltering in their vehicles are different from other unsheltered homeless individuals (Wakin, 2005). They have access to greater resources as demonstrated by their ability to maintain a vehicle, and they typically exhibit lower levels of acuity compared to other unsheltered homeless individuals. At the same time, the vehicular homeless survive in a precarious position. Living in a vehicle is often criminalized, creating risks of accumulating fines and possible loss of their vehicle and their ability to work (Mitchell, 1997). Thus, safe parking provides a possible avenue that can prevent individuals from slipping into further hardship (Rosenthal & Foscarinis, 2006).
Most of the programs surveyed have experienced high demand for their safe parking slots. Over half of the programs have to place applicants on a waitlist either all or some of the time.
Program Models
HUD or other major funders have yet to recognize safe parking as a standard program.
Consequently, existing programs have adopted diverse models. One group of programs, we call the umbrella model, is organized by a central actor and maintains multiple parking lots. These programs are more likely to be funded by governments with a combination of local, county, state, 3 or federal dollars. They tend to offer case management and be integrated into their community’s network of programs servicing individuals experiencing homelessness. These programs operate up to 9 lots with an average of 5. The number of parking spaces provided ranges between 21 and 101, which an average of 57. They are supported by substantial budgets that range between $100,000 to over $200,000 per year.3
On the other end of the spectrum, there are several smaller, independent operators. They manage a single lot and offer spaces for between 6 up 60 vehicles with an average of 19 spaces.
They are less likely to offer case management and connect their clients to the network of homeless services. These programs often operate on much smaller budgets, with four programs reporting yearly budgets of less than $10,000. In between these two models, there are examples of hybrids where several small programs pool resources to run safe parking services.
Services. All of the programs provided
bathrooms to their clients either in a nearby
building or with a portable toilet. Close to 60%
of the programs provide services that improve
the quality of life of their clients, including
showers, meals, wi-fi, and charging stations
for electronic devices. Funds for repairing
vehicles and insurance and registration issues
are available in over half of the programs as
are housing placement services. Less
frequently, programs provide funds for rental
deposits, moving costs, and other expenses
when renting an apartment. Some programs
also provide counseling services, help with documents, and childcare.
Lot hours. A significant program design decision involves the hours lots are open to program clients. Lots often require parkers to vacate their parking slots early in the morning and only return in the evening, but slightly more than half of the providers interviewed by this research allow clients to remain in place 24 hours a day. The choice is difficult because many lots are needed for workers during the day. On the other hand, clients find the ability to stay in place and not have to rise early in the morning to be attractive features. One interviewee thought that keeping lots open 24 hours a day was the single most important feature for recruiting clients. Several providers were open all day even before the pandemic, but the numbers increased during the pandemic because remote work reduced daytime demand.
Recruitment. Most programs employ a multi-pronged approach to recruiting individuals experiencing homelessness into their programs. They include 2-1-1 call centers, word of mouth, online information, flyer distribution, and referrals from social services and law enforcement.
Umbrella organizations were more likely to rely on waitlists when demand exceeded the number of slots available. In contrast, independent programs had more flexibility to increase enrollment limits in response to demand. Umbrella organization programs have more formal intake processes that often include an assessment such as the VI-SPDAT. They also sought to recruit individuals interested in seeking stable housing. In contrast, the smaller independent programs maintain less formal intake processes and express an interest in serving anyone who seeks a safer, more stable place to park whether they are seeking permanent housing or not. 4 Target Population. Most of the programs interviewed segregate their clients by demographic groups. Almost half gave preferences to certain groups -- such as families with children, the elderly, and veterans -- to target the service to the most vulnerable. Other programs with multiple lots designated certain lots to serve particular populations to improve the comfort of parkers.
Certain programs limited service to current residents of their community. They cited community concerns of becoming a welfare magnet, although the evidence for the theory is limited (Rosenthal & Foscarinis, 2006). Faith-operated programs that retain more operational autonomy tended to emphasize low barriers to entry as part of their religious mission.
Safety and Security. During the intake process, programs typically check whether applicants are on a sex offender registry and have a valid driver’s license and vehicle registration.
Registered sex offenders are usually prohibited from enrolling, but many programs report working with applicants that do have current papers. Most programs conducted criminal background checks but did not always automatically disqualify participants with a record. At program registration, parkers are informed of lot rules that include a prohibition on alcohol and drug use, quiet hours, and rules of common courtesy.
Interviewees did not cite security and rule-breaking as major problems on their lots. Only 4 of the 19 programs contracted with paid security, though it was a major expense for the programs that did so. One program discontinued its security contract when problems did not arise to save on the expense. Another hired a current parker to conduct security, and the rest relied on a mix of self-governance, drop-ins by program staff, on-call staff, and video surveillance.
Challenges
Safe parking programs confront a range of challenges to continue operations and serve their clients well. They continue to explore program designs that help overcome resistance to services and lower barriers to service. The hours of lot operations is one important factor. Programs also report the need to be flexible with the on and off privileges, hours of arrival for people who work evenings and nights, and with the enforcement of rules. Most operators state that individuals who are exited from the program due to rule violations such as alcohol and drug-use restrictions are allowed to reapply, and they are only banned from the program after multiple infractions, use of weapons, or violence.
Programs require clients to have a valid driver’s license, creating barriers for some populations.
Individuals who have lost their licenses due to DUIs do not have access to Safe Parking programs.
Undocumented individuals also face barriers to participating in Safe Parking and accessing housing programs.
Funding is a constant challenge because safe parking is not eligible to be funded through the HUD Continuum of Care program or Emergency Shelter Grants, though some programs have found avenues by which a portion of safe parking program operations can be supported through CoC or ESG monies. A few of the programs were forced to cease operations when funding ran out, and others report that limited funds prevent them from providing a richer set of services.
Community resistance is an issue, and opposition has forced providers to abandon some proposed lots. Nevertheless, given the strong opposition that frequently arises from the placement of homeless services, these programs report fewer problems from community members. Active community engagement, developing a good relationship with the local police 5 force, and strategic placement of lots are among the strategies employed to avoid opposition.
Once in operation, community complaints have not been a major issue.
The final challenge cited by interviewees is their efforts to rehouse clients. There are limited slots available in voucher programs such as Housing Choice Vouchers, Rapid Re-Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing. Moreover, because safe parking clients often do not exhibit high levels of acuity, they are less likely to be matched into these programs. In addition, most of the programs in this research operate in high-cost housing markets, making it difficult to identify other options for clients.
Program Outcomes
The degree to which safe parking is an effective addition to a community’s homelessness response remains an open question. Most programs interviewed track parker exits to temporary or permanent, and they reported highly variable outcomes from a low of 13% of clients moving into temporary or permanent housing up to 98%. However, the program with a 98% success rate is an outlier because it operates primarily as a short-term measure as clients wait to receive motel room vouchers. After that program, the best reported success rate was 60%.
With the limited data available, it is not possible to find clear patterns associated with the differing outcomes. There are no discernable differences in outcomes based on umbrella vs. independent providers, the provision of case management, whether lots were open 24-hours a day, or in communities with camping prohibitions. Clearly, more data are needed to identify best practices in safe parking programs.
Benchmarks for safe parking program outcomes have not yet been established. The majority of the programs interviewed reviewed their outcome metrics but few stated specific targets that they sought to achieve. The most appropriate comparison case would be the housing outcomes from street outreach programs, though it is likely that the street outreach population includes more people who are chronically homeless and suffer high acuity. According to the 2019 System Performance Metrics published by HUD, the median percentage of clients who have a successful exit to either temporary or permanent housing was 45% for all urban Continuums of Care and was 38% among the largest metro areas. The programs that reported outcomes had a median success rate of 40%. More encouragingly, more than half of the programs achieved stronger outcomes than the street outreach in their community. More research is needed to investigate the barriers that inhibit these programs from achieving better results.
Beyond rehousing efforts, programs report that the other goals that they prioritize include improving parkers’ feeling of safety and building a sense of community among program participants. From a community perspective, programs cited they have successfully improved perceptions of the homeless by the surrounding community.
Next Steps
This survey demonstrates that safe parking programs offer a flexible and promising alternative to helping people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in their vehicles, but the concept continues to evolve. The next steps need to provide more detailed information to help program providers refine and improve their operations. The steps include:
6 Further Evaluation. There remains much uncertainty on what practices work best, under what conditions, and for what types of clients. Continued data gathering and analysis are essential to providing insights on how to overcome resistance to program participation, how to design programs that meet the needs of the people experiencing homelessness in their vehicles, and how to improve methods for quickly resolving their issues with homelessness. Other unanswered questions are how to best integrate safe parking into a community’s homeless services system and whether safe parking is a relatively cost-effective program.
Benchmarks. The homeless policy community should develop benchmarks to guide program operators. Benchmarks are needed for rehousing rates, lengths of stay, and services provided.
Based on the programs in this survey, an initial benchmark for safe parking programs could be to place 30-40% of clients in temporary or permanent housing, though coastal communities with tight housing markets are likely to find this mark a challenge. In addition, programs that target services for families or vulnerable populations should consider recommendations promulgated by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, including not turning away any families or members of such vulnerable groups and striving to swiftly place these clients into permanent housing.
References:
Homelessness Policy Research Institute. (2018). Safe Parking Programs. socialinnovation.usc.edu/homeless_research/safe-parking-programs/ Mitchell, D. (1997). The annihilation of space by law: The roots and implications of antihomeless laws in the United States. Antipode, 29(3), 303-335.
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty [NLCHP]. (2019). Housing not handcuffs:
Ending the criminalization of homelessness in US cities. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOTHANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf Rosenthal, R., & Foscarinis, M. (2006). Responses to homelessness: Past policies, future directions, and a right to housing. In Bratt R., Stone M., & Hartman C. (Eds.), A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda (pp. 316-339). Temple University Press.
Wakin, M. (2005). Not sheltered, not homeless: RVs as Makeshifts. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(8), 1013–1032. doi.org/10.1177/0002764204274197 Endnotes:
1 The Center for Homeless Inquiries would like to thank Nitan Shanas of Rutgers and Mirle Rabinowitz-Bussell and Leslie Lewis from UCSD for sharing their lists of safe parking programs identified by their programs. 2 The researcher did not contact the programs in Santa Barbara or Los Angeles. These programs are discussed in the USC Homeless Policy Institute Briefer (HPRI 2018).
3 Additional details about the programs are available in the full report which can be downloaded at the Center for Homeless Inquiries website, www.homelessinquiries.org/reports. www.homelessinquiries.org
Responding to Homelessness
How California cities are making real progress
The recent, sharp rise in the number of Californians experiencing homelessness is now reaching crisis proportions. Most of these individuals experiencing homelessness are concentrated in cities.
In the last few years, cities have accelerated their efforts to find innovative solutions to prevent and reduce homelessness. Local leaders are forming public-private partnerships, collaborating closely with residents and community groups, and cobbling together a patchwork of funding to deliver emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and a wide array of other wraparound services.
However, in many cities — even with new investments and accelerated efforts — the number of people falling into homelessness is outpacing the number of people cities are able support. Cities need a permanent home in the state budget to be able to address this crisis.
The cities below are a small sampling of those throughout the state that are making progress in supporting and reducing the number of unhoused individuals in their communities. Their work provides insights into what works to prevent and end homelessness.
Bakersfield
Since 2020, Bakersfield has invested millions of city, county, and state dollars to support individuals experiencing homelessness, provide housing, increase staffing, and expand wraparound services. This influx of funding has seeded projects such as a new 150-bed navigation center and 70 more beds at existing shelters. An additional 118 navigation center beds, the creation of a countywide Homeless Action Plan, the expansion of street outreach teams, and more direct behavioral health supportive services at the city’s four homeless shelters are all underway.
Corona and Norco
In 2020, Corona adopted its Homeless Strategic Plan, with the mission of forming public-private partnerships with dozens of local nonprofits and faith-based organizations to deliver a broad spectrum of services to people experiencing homelessness. The plan soon led to a joint program with the smaller, neighboring city of Norco. A statewide nonprofit provides outreach services, case management, support services, and a path to permanent housing in both cities. The program’s impact was immediate:
Homelessness in Corona has decreased by 33% since 2020. In Norco, 26% of the program participants have moved into permanent housing. This unique joint program, funded by state, federal, and local dollars, has served as a model for other cities in California.
Eureka
Eureka has significantly reduced the number of unhoused residents through Uplift Eureka, a pioneering program that combines an array of social services. Through streamlined services and expanded partnerships with dozens of community-based organizations and government agencies, Eureka’s capacity to give people the support they need has vastly increased. Uplift Eureka focuses on four areas:
housing assistance, resume and interview skill development, job training, and outreach. Since its inception in 2019, the program has raised more than $3 million in grants, including a cornerstone $1 million federal Emergency Solutions Grant, and reduced the number of people experiencing homelessness by roughly 25%.
www.calcites.org
www.calcities.org
Hayward
The number of people experiencing homelessness in Hayward fell by 22% from 2019 to 2022, due in large part to the city’s first Housing Navigation Center and motel conversion project. The center, staffed and managed by a local nonprofit, provides a host of services, including outreach, short-term housing, intensive case management, and housing placement services for people living in encampments. The center is funded through several revenue streams, including the voter-approved state Safe Neighborhood and School Fund, the American Rescue Plan Act, and the city’s General Fund/Community Development Block Grants.
Paramount
For cities with few resources, connecting people with existing systems of care is key to reducing homelessness. Paramount’s strategy revolves around coordinating services with public agencies and community nonprofits. The city has also passed several affordable housing incentives. These efforts have been remarkably successful; the number of unhoused residents has plummeted by 56% since 2019. One such partnership with a local nonprofit and the Paramount Unified School District has directly aided 27 Paramount families and permanently housed 10.
Redlands
In March 2022 Redlands received $30 million in state Homekey funding to convert a former motel into housing for chronically homeless people. Six months later, the first of 100-plus residents began moving into the studio apartments. The Governor and federal homelessness experts have lauded this unprecedented speed of construction, which Redlands credits to strong public-private partnerships. The city worked closely with a company to remodel the motel and manage the property, and a local nonprofit provides supportive services.
San Diego
San Diego has successfully secured a variety of funding sources to prevent and reduce homelessness on multiple fronts. In the last two years, the city received $27.5 million in state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant funding, as well as an additional $11.8 million in Homekey funding. San Diego County also granted $5 million to three cities, including San Diego, to collaboratively bring more shelter options online and connect more people to services. The results have been striking. In six months, San Diego increased its shelter beds capacity and street outreach by 28%. In 2022 alone, the city also connected more than 1,470 people experiencing homelessness to permanent or longer-term housing.
The cities of San Mateo County
A city cannot solve homelessness by itself. It requires the political will of several government entities, as well as the support of the entire community. In San Mateo County, 20 cities, the county government, and community leaders banded together to educate and raise the awareness of residents about the urgent need for permanent supportive housing. The result? Since 2021, 733 formerly homeless households have moved into permanent housing. To date, more than 300 new units of interim and permanent housing have gone up, and a navigation center is slated to open in 2023, with 240 beds for interim housing — a 91% increase from 2019.
POINT ARENA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM: X A
MEETING DATE: 6/22/2021
TITLE
Discussion of a Potential “Safe Parking Program”
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report and direct staff
ANALYSIS
At your May 27, 2021 City Council meeting, you adopted Ordinance 240, placing restrictions on camping on public property. During discussion, Council directed staff to explore the possibility of designating a particular area in town as a designated location for the homeless in vehicles to sleep safely overnight.
Many jurisdictions in California have instituted what are known as “safe parking areas” to address the increasing frequency of people living in their vehicles.
The Mendocino County Continuum of Care has a subcommittee that is currently exploring safe parking areas. The committee is at the stage of gathering information to make a recommendation to the full board. Your City Manager is participating in those discussions.
Although safe parking areas seem like a simple solution for people living in their vehicles to safely park overnight, there are several factors to consider.
Your City Manager spoke with our risk manager PARSAC about the issue. They expressed concerns about the City taking on the project by itself: “Should something happen, the city will certainly be brought into a lawsuit as it is a city-sponsored program. If you can get another organization to manage it, and they take on the liability, that would be a favorable solution. You will also need to provide portable bathrooms and work with the Sheriff’s Department. I am not sure the city should take this on by itself.” Neither City staff nor our risk manager, PARSAC, can recommend designating a spot without also including some form of management of the location. In researching other safe parking zones in the state, each one has an organization managing the area.
Safe Parking Programs provide vehicle dwellers a safe and legal place to park and sleep in their vehicles overnight. Individuals using their vehicles for shelter face the risk of parking citations, break-ins, and unsanitary living conditions. Many of these programs operate in collaboration with social service, non-profit, and religious organizations in addition to law enforcement to provide and maintain the safe parking location.
In other jurisdictions, Safe Parking Programs generally require a valid driver’s license, vehicle registration, and insurance to participate. Most programs also screen out sex offenders and recent violent felons using a background check system. Participants are issued permits for 30 to 90 days that are conditionally renewable based on utilization of case management services.
Monitors show up on a nightly basis to ensure codes of conduct are complied with.
Restrooms are provided. Food is provided on occasion, as is technical automotive assistance or help for residents trying to navigate tricky bureaucracies. The goal, always, is to get people out of their cars and into housing. That requires intensive case management. All of this takes money that is usually painstakingly cobbled together with a patchwork of public and private grants. Union City, Santa Barbara and San Diego and Eugene, Oregon all have established programs.
Safe Parking Programs are a relatively new and somewhat complex program which will require coordination with County and Sheriff to implement. Staff is seeking direction from Council on further research and possible implementation of a Safe Parking Program.
FISCAL IMPACT
None currently.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Flyer on Eugene’s “Car Camping Program”
2. Flyer on Union City’s “CAREavan” Program
CITY MANAGER SIGNATURE
_________________________________
Paul Andersen, City Manager
The Car Camping Program
What is the Car Camping Program?
The Car Camping Program provides safe and legal
places for unhoused people to sleep in vehicles,
campers, trailers, or Conestoga huts.
How are sites selected?
Car camping sites can be located on property
owned or leased by public entities, non-profits,
businesses, or religious organizations. The
property owner may grant permission for up to 6
vehicles, which, by applicable City Code, includes
cars, tents, campers, trailers, and Conestoga huts.
Who operates the sites, and who pays for the
program?
The majority of car
camping sites are
managed by St. Vincent
de Paul through their
Overnight Parking
Program. They oversee
more than 70 permitted
spots at over 50
addresses in the Eugene/Springfield metro area.
There are also churches, non-profits, and
businesses who host and oversee their own Car
Camping sites.
The City of Eugene provides funding for the
Overnight Parking Program operated by St.
Vincent de Paul through a contract agreement.
Funds are used to supply the portable restrooms
and trash service and for St. Vincent de Paul staff
to administer the program. Hosts who are not
part of St. Vincent de Paul’s program pay their
own program costs.
How are the sites kept healthy and safe?
Car camping sites must have sanitary facilities,
garbage disposal services, and a storage area for
campers to store any personal items so that they
are not visible from any public street. St. Vincent
de Paul provides siting, camper screening and
placement, garbage disposal, portable restrooms,
and linkages to services for participants in their
program at no cost to the host site.
How does someone get on the waiting list?
Adults in need of assistance should call (541)
461-8688 or visit the Eugene Service Station at
450 Highway 99 N.
Where can I find more information about
becoming a host site?
St. Vincent de Paul manages car camping sites at
no cost to the host. Individuals or businesses who
are interested in more information about their
program can visit https://www.svdp.us/whatwe-do/homeless-services/overnight-parkingprogram/ or call (541) 461-8688. You can also reach the City Manager’s Office at (541) 682-
8442 to find out more information about
becoming a host site.
Where do Conestoga huts come from?
A local nonprofit,
Community Supported
Shelters, constructs the
Conestoga huts for use in
homeless programs in
Eugene and the
surrounding area. For more information, visit
www.communitysupportedshelters.org.
Questions or concerns? Call 541-682-8442.
CAREavan Enrollment Locations
Please try and call ahead to make an appointment. We
usually work Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00 pm
If you call after 5:00 pm on a Friday, we might not
respond till the following Monday.
RULES AND
REGULATIONS
We will be going over all of the rules,
standards of behavior and confidentiality
notice when you fill out the application.
All rules must be followed. Violation of any
rules will result in a review and possibly
removal from the program.
City of Union City
YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES
SERGIO ABUNDIS
Case Management
505 H Street
Union City, CA 94587
510.675.5821
[email protected]
Union City Family Center / NHUSD
LOURDES VILLEGAS
Community Specialist
725 Whipple Road.
Union City, CA 94587
510.476.2755
[email protected]
Only registers families with children.
City of Union City
JESUS GARCIA
Program Coordinator
Ruggieri Senior Center
33997 Alvarado-Niles Road.
Union City, CA 94587
510.675.5482
[email protected]
SOME RULES INCLUDE:
Please respect the neighborhood around
us. No loud music, and/ or noises.
No alcohol, smoking, or drug use is allowed at any of our parking lots and facilities.
Minors and pets must be supervised by
their parents or guardians at all times.
Vehicles must be owner occupied. Only
the people listed on the application can
occupy the vehicle.
Vehicles can stay at the parking lots
between the hours of 8:00 pm– 7:00
am. Vehicles must be moved out of the
parking lots in the mornings.
Violent behavior of any kind (Verbal
and physical) towards yourself, family,
participants or CAREavan staff, will not
be tolerated.
SAFE
OVERNIGHT
PARKING
Overnight parking sites are available from
8:00 pm– 7:00 am.
Our attendants are on site from
8:00 pm–7:00 am only.
Each location has a designated night.
You may only park there on those nights.
You may not park at the sites on
unattended nights. All Violators will be asked to
leave.
THE PROGRAM
1 Participating Organizations
Safe Parking Location
The CAREavan program is a special project
organized by the City of Union City, Union
City Family Center, local community and
faith based organizations in an effort to
provide families and/or individuals who
have been displaced and are temporarily
homeless, living in their vehicles and need
a safe place to park and sleep overnight.
Some facilities and locations provide
additional services.
SHOWERS
TOILETRIES
OPEN PANTRY (CLOTHING & FOOD)
DINNER SERVICE/ BREAKFAST
SNACKS
FREE WI-FI/ COMPUTER USE
WASHER AND DRYER
CAREavan Requirements
In order to be eligible and participate in the
CAREavan program you meet the following
requirements:
Anyone that is in need of a safe place to park
overnight.
Complete a enrollment form. You must enroll
at one of the enrollment locations.
Must have a running and working vehicle.
Vehicles will need to move out of the parking
lot at 7:00 am. No vehicle repair work is
allowed on site.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS,
PLEASE CONTACT THE PROGRAM COORDINATOR,
JESUS GARCIA
RUGGIERI SENIOR CENTER
BROWN TEMPLE CHURCH
UNION CITY APOSTOLIC CHURCH
UNION CITY FAMILY CENTER
(BARNARD WHITE MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE)
OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY
All of the participating facilities and locations
will provide open restrooms throughout the
night. The City of Union City Community and
Recreation Services Department will be
providing an attendant to be present
throughout the night at all of the locations.
2 3
THE CITY OF UNION CITY
UNION CITY FAMILY CENTER
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
UNION CITY APOSTOLIC CHURCH
BROWN TEMPLE CHURCH
OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY
FAMILY EDUCATION & RESOURCE CENTER (FERC)
INSPIRE CHURCH
RESONATE CHURCH
PROJECT WE HOPE / DIGNITY ON WHEELS
4 Please be respectful of the other
participants, our attendants and staff, parking
lot and facility. No drugs or alcohol allowed at
the parking lots or facilities.
5 Once registered, you will be given a car
placard that MUST be clearly displayed on
your windshield when staying at one of our
participating locations at all times.
6 Must comply with all of the rules and
regulations of the program.
That’s it. It only takes a few minutes to register for
the program.
Parking Site Times
POINT ARENA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM: VIII B
MEETING DATE: 7/27/2021
TITLE
Resolution 2021-15 Safe Parking Zone (Sponsored by Councilmember Dahlhoff)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Discuss and approve or deny proposed resolution
ANALYSIS
Councilmember Dahlhoff has provided the attached letter and resolution for the Council’s consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
Possible increased maintenance by City staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Councilmember Dahlhoff
2. Resolution 2021-15
CITY MANAGER SIGNATURE
_________________________________
Paul Andersen, City Manager
June 20, 2021
Council Members,
When the City Council adopted Ordinance 240 I had asked that language be inserted to allow the Council, by resolution, to exempt an area from the prohibition on overnight sleeping in vehicles.
This topics has been discussed, in the context of the greater problem of homelessness in our county.
While I support efforts at that greater goal, I would like to take this first minimal step. I do not intend this to be a homeless camp, only a place where people can sleep in a vehicle overnight without being harassed and then move on come day time, with a maximum of 8 hrs parked there.
As background I want to share this story;
Several years ago I was called to serve on a jury in Fort Bragg. The case was against a homeless man who was charged with sleeping in his truck. He was a repeat offender. He was not changed with anything else; not drugs; not being noisy; not even littering. Every person on the jury was aghast that our society was wasting time on this effort. But we had no choice in the matter - the question was had he broken the law? The answer was clearly yes. The stupidity of that situation stays with me.
I believe that the attached resolution is self explanatory, and I look forward to answering any questions and modifying it to address any concerns. Since this is only a Resolution, the Council is free to change it rather easily as needed.
Thank you,
Eric Dahlhoff
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-16
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POINT ARENA ESTABLISHING A ZONE
FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING BY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN VEHICLES WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021 the City of Point Arena passed Ordinance 240 in order to better regulate camping on public property and to help insure the health and safety of the city's residents; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 240, among other things, made it illegal to sleep in a vehicle parked on public property "overnight" which is defined as between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 240 Section 8.35.020 (B)(4) specifically allows the City to declare, by resolution, areas to be exempt from the overnight sleeping in vehicles prohibition; and WHEREAS, it is obvious that some people sometimes need to sleep between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. and it is inhumane to harass people for simply sleeping in their vehicles without offering a reasonable alternative; and
WHEREAS, a logical and safe place for people to sleep in their vehicles between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. would be next to the Sheriff’s Substation located at City Hall, because there is a portable restroom, outdoor lighting and an occasional police presence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Point Arena does declare that:
1) A space for 6 vehicles (approximately 60 feet) in the area in the south east part of the City Hall parking lot will be designated as exempt from the overnight parking prohibition; 2) Parking will not be allowed in this space at other times except by special permission from the City. 3) The City shall place and maintain signage in that area, prohibiting parking longer than 8 hours.
PASSED AND ADOPTED The foregoing Resolution No. 2021-16 was passed and adopted at a Regular meeting of the Point Arena City Council on the 27th day of July, 2021 by the following vote. Motion by _______, Seconded by ________.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
SCOTT IGNACIO
Mayor
ATTEST:
Paul Andersen
City Clerk