COUNCIL AGENDA: 2/8/2022
ITEM: 3.6
Memorandum
TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Mayor Sam Liccardo
Councilmember Raul Peralez
Councilmember David Co hen
Councilmember Matt Mahan
SUBJECT: Guadalupe Gardens
Fencing Project and
Activation Alternatives
DATE: February 4, 2022
APPROVED:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept Recommendation #1 and refer activation alternatives to the budget process.
2. Amend Recommendation #2 to clarify that the $1.5 million will not be used for a perimeter chain -link fence but rather to supplement the proposed activation solutions that require protective measures.
3. Comply with FAA direction to ensure there are no unhoused residents in the Guadalupe Gardens area by June 30, 2022 by accelerating rehousing efforts - as directed in the October 15, 2021 joint memo from the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers Peralez and Cohen - with additional direction to:
a. Identify the outstanding need for housing and safe par king solutions by working with HomeFirst to compare the latest census count conducted in the Guadalupe Gardens and along the river against the number of unhoused residents who:
i. Have accepted and moved in t o housing;
ii. Have been referred to a housing solution and are awaiting placement; iii. Are unlikely to accept housing, but willing to accept safe parking, shelter, or a drug rehabilitation program.
b. Return through the budget process with a dedication of Measure E funding to ensure housing solutions (e.g. rapid rehousing dollars, hotel/motel vouchers) and priority within the coordinated entry system are available to all unhoused residents listed in the latest census count.
i. Once funding is allocated, disaggregate the construction timeline for Lot E from the abatem ent schedule.
c. Confi rm that a portion of funds from the recent Safe Parking RFP is set aside to open a safe parking site on public or private land for the operational cars and/or RVs currently parked in the Guadalupe River Park and Gardens area. i. Return to Council by April 2022 with a clear timeline to open the safe parking site and refer residents from Guadalupe River Park.
4. Implement direction from the October 15, 2021 memo to clear all vehicles from parklan d by June 30, 2022 in Phase 3 and along the river b y:
a. Prioritizing clearing vehicles that are on the trail; b. Directing operable vehicles to move to Spring St (or a safe parking site); c. Working with residents to repair inoperable vehicles that need minor fi xes or assisting with administrative iss ues, such as expired registration; and d. Allowing for the towing of inoperable vehicles from parkland.
5. Ensure by June 30 th there will be unhindered public use of the creek trail from West Hedding to West Santa Clara St.
DISCUSSION
We recognize the complexi ty and scale of the encampment in the Guadalupe Gardens area and appreciate staff’s tremendous effort to clear and clean up the first two phases in the airport approach zone and find housing for 50 residents. Our recommendations seek to provide additional reso urces to rapidly rehouse residents who remain encamped in phase 3 and along the Guadalupe River to ensure compliance with FAA direction and restore the park and trail for public use by June 30, 2022. We s hould not wait for Lot E to complete before clearing phase 3 because delaying only tempers the urgency for unhoused residents to accept housing solutions and move indoors. Additionally, we have to consider that some residents will not accept an emergency h ousing solution at all. Instead, we should adopt a pragmatic approach that offers a variety of housing, shelter, or safe parking solutions - coupled with drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment, as necessary - that reflect the needs of the unhoused population encamped in phase 3 and along the river. As our partners in outreach, HomeFirst should be able to provide a comprehensive report and census count so that we can allocate resources accordingly to house residents.
Finally, our direction also see ks to reassure residents the City will not be allocating $1.5 million towards a perimeter chain-link fence that would render the park inaccessible to the public, but that we will reallocate and leverage those funds to build out activation solutions, which could include other types of fencing that we would see in a typical public park (e.g., split rail wood fence). We acknowledge that our recommendations may require garnering existing resources and staff from current activities, and we look forward to that discussion in order to urgently move forward to house residents and reactivate the park.