San Jose City Council
November 29, 2022

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Ragan Henninger

AND CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: November 16, 2022

Approved Date
11/16/2022

SUBJECT: CITY INITIATIVES ROADMAP - EMERGENCY HOUSING SYSTEM EXPANSION: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATION

(a) Accept the staff report on Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis.

(b) Adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Housing, or their designee, to negotiate and execute an amendment to an existing agreement with Destination: Home, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for the Lived Experience Advisory Board of Santa Clara County to complete a survey and analysis of people experiencing homelessness living in recreational vehicles.

OUTCOME

Approval of this action will authorize staff to implement a census and survey of people experiencing homelessness living in recreational vehicles (RVs). The results of this work will inform the development of a strategy for how to support and transition people living in their RVs into housing and a plan to manage the impacts of RV parking on public streets. Staff will also develop a framework to address where RVs can park in the City for review and consideration by the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee based on what the City Council may subsequently consider referring to the Administration to work with the City Attorney’s Office on new or amended ordinances.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has experienced an increase in unhoused residents living in RVs or other oversized vehicles. City Council directed staff to identify an approach to count and understand the needs of these residents, evaluate RV parking programs and ordinances in other jurisdictions, and provide COUNCIL AGENDA: 11/29/22
FILE: 22-1747
ITEM: 8.2

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

recommendations for efficiently addressing issues related to RVs or other oversized vehicles in the City.

To that end, in this memorandum, staff has provided an approach to understand the scope and nature of needs with a recommendation to conduct a census and survey, evaluated several RV safe parking programs to form the basis for further program efforts in San José, and provided a comparative analysis of municipal ordinances that seek to address lived-in RV issues on City streets. The information provided in this memorandum lays out substantial background that will, upon completion of the census and survey analysis, enable the City to move forward on a comprehensive approach to both supporting people who live in RVs and better managing the impacts of these RVs and oversized vehicles on the City.

BACKGROUND

At the May 3, 2022, City Council meeting, Vice M
ayor Jones and Councilmember Mahan
brought forward an item (Item 7.1) seeking to address the ongoing issue of how the City should best manage the needs of people living in RVs while meeting the needs of people, businesses and the environment that are also impacted by public street live-in RV parking. The City Council voted to direct staff to explore the practices of other jurisdictions grappling with these issues and to return to City Council with a proposal and findings.

M
ore recently, on September 28, 2022, Vice Mayor Jones along with Councilmembers Foley, Jimenez, and Mahan brought forth an additional item (Item C.1) to the Rules and Open Government Committee seeking to bring before the full City Council several additional directions related to managing RVs, helping people who reside in them, and addressing various impacts to other members of the community, businesses and the environment. Also, during this meeting, Councilmember Cohen brought forth an item (also Item C.1) seeking to have the City Council direct staff to further explore ordinances that would bring consistency to the City’s approach to managing RVs and to consider mechanisms for instituting options such as RV/vehicle repair and vehicle buyback programs specifically for inoperable vehicles that inhibit people residing in them from participating in RV safe parking programs. Both memoranda were consolidated at the October 26, 2022, Rules and Open Government Committee meeting.

T
he resulting analyses and recommendations for all items have been consolidated into this single memorandum for clarity and consistency.

The issues City Council seeks to address can be separated into four categories, discussed below.

These are:

1. Census and Survey: RV census and needs of people;

2. RV Program Comparison: RV/oversized vehicle programs/results;

3. Inoperable RV Programs: Inoperable lived-in vehicle program options; and

4. RV Ordinances: RV/lived-in vehicle ordinances and options.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

The order of the discussion of these items in this memorandum is intentional. First, understanding the data about the magnitude and locations of RV parking issues and the nature of people’s needs is necessary for designing approaches appropriate to the scale and complexity of the overall issue. Second, based on this data, the range of programmatic options and knowledge of effectiveness – to the extent known – can be analyzed with the scale and nature of needs in mind. Then, addressing these issues of scale and program design must also incorporate related issues, such as challenges with inoperable vehicles that present unique problems for full resolution. Finally, with a robust understanding of the scope of human need and associated challenges, it is possible to have a meaningful policy discussion around potential ordinances that impact people and the environment.

The City does not have the data required to assess all of these items immediately. Given the urgency, though, there are immediate steps that can be taken – discussed below – even while obtaining the data. Further, by thinking about each item in the systematic approach described in this memorandum, it provides an ordered way to work towards substantive, urgent actions.

(1) C
ensus and Survey: RV census and needs of people

The City needs to first understand the scope and location of the issue at a detailed enough level to make appropriate policy decisions. As a starting point, the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing leads a regional Point in Time (PIT) Count. The last year for which reliable RV and vehicle data exists, 2019, includes only an aggregate category for all unsheltered people who were identified as living in a vehicle, not separately for RVs.

In San José, for 2019, 17% of the 5,117 unsheltered unhoused residents identified living in some type of vehicle.

While the PIT Count is a useful starting point, the limitations for understanding the magnitude of the issue in San José suggest a periodic supplement of this data specifically for RVs and oversized vehicles would be of value. The data limitations include:

a) The location data is not yet reliable as necessary within the City limits to determine how many potential RV parking sites (or other options) may be necessary. b) The count is done once every other year in February and cannot capture seasonal variation/movement that may impact the number and location of such lived-in vehicles. c) The count is not specific to RVs and oversized vehicles. Without further distinction, it is not possible to make clear assessments from that data about the need specific to RVs.

During the evaluation of approaches to conducting a census, staff met with officials from the City of Mountain View who conduct a regular census, County of San Mateo staff who conducted an RV census and survey in 2019, and researchers from the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative who developed tools that enable the City of Seattle to conduct a regular census. City of Mountain View utilizes internal staff to cover roughly 14 square miles and determine the scope of RV/over-sized vehicles within its boundaries. City of Mountain View deploys staff who already regularly engage or observe lived-in RVs as part of their work, which helps increase

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

efficiencies in the count. Further, the staff have developed some level of trust and familiarity to offset potential alarm or suspicion around such a count.

In discussion with the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative researchers, staff learned that they had designed a set of principles used in the City of Seattle to enable participants in the PIT Count to refine the census being performed. In addition, County of San Mateo conducted an RV survey in 2019 after seeing a 127% increase in lived-in RVs on its streets from its prior count. County of San Mateo staff worked with a consultant and members of the community to develop the questions and approach. City staff reviewed the process, timing, and approach of the survey to gain further insights.

Discussions and review of materials from these jurisdictions suggest that a periodic census count of RVs and oversized vehicles is likely to be a benefit to the City of San José. Conducting an initial census count will also enable staff to compare the results to the local PIT Count estimates of lived-in vehicles to consider whether the PIT Count data would be a sufficient ongoing tool for monitoring progress.

As part of the October 26 item, the Rules and Open Government Committee also sought to have staff develop an understanding of the range of needs of people living in RVs. The purpose was to enhance design of appropriate interventions. Staff has already learned from its experiences at a range of encampments, including the FAA-directed Guadalupe Gardens clearance. Helpful lessons learned include:

• People who live in RVs frequently worry that housing options will not result in permanent homes. They are understandably not willing to risk giving up their RVs for a home until they feel secure in their new home. A time-limited RV storage should be considered to reduce barriers to participating in a housing program. People are sometimes given RVs – both inoperable and not – to live in without documentation, which can hamper efforts to sell, repair, or for the City to purchase such RVs. Support, along with funding, is needed to help people register their vehicles and repair them.

Some people who have RVs view those RVs as their homes and are seeking a safe place to live in them on a potentially permanent or at least long-term basis. Identifying a safe place where people can park will allow the needed time to build trust so that they can consider alternative housing options. As a result of the above, the development of a thoughtful approach is necessary to further understand the needs of people living in RVs. To deepen the City’s understanding of the specific needs of residents living in RVs in San José, a further field survey of a sample of unhoused residents who live in RVs or oversized vehicles would be valuable. A recommendation for this item is contained in the Analysis section below.

(2) RV/
Oversized Vehicle Program Comparison, (3) Inoperable RV Programs Discussion, and (4) RV Ordinance Comparison

Council directed staff to explore three additional items - RV/oversized vehicle programs, inoperable RV programs, and RV ordinance comparisons - to understand what is being done in

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

other communities and, to the extent available, what those results indicate. See ATTACHMENT 1 for these comparison materials from other jurisdictions. This attachment includes several reports as sub-attachments that provide detailed results from other communities.

ANALYSIS

This analysis addresses the specific Council directions from the May 3, 2022 and September 28, 2022, Memoranda described in the background section above.

I. Explore cost and strategy required to conduct an RV census and survey of needs of people living in RVs.

Existing resources can be deployed to conduct the RV census and gather satellite imagery to improve the efficiency of this census. Further, the imagery will provide insights about high-need areas that may be more readily apparent at a zoomed-out view than from the ground level count.

In addition, staff has analyzed alternative options to conduct a survey for purposes of understanding the unique needs of unhoused people residing in RVs. Given that the City already has a contractual relationship with the Lived Experience Advisory Board (LEAB) through Destination: Home, this presents an efficient opportunity to work with an existing partner that has specialized expertise and knowledge to conduct the more in-depth survey. Staff would work with the LEAB and any sub-contractor for design of the sample size and survey methodology and plan to conduct such survey after the census is completed. LEAB and Destination: Home have expressed their interest in the survey, the Housing Department is developing a project scope and will seek formal LEAB approval.

Recommendation:

Utilize up to $200,000 from the Housing Trust Fund to complete preparation for a survey and further analysis work with Destination: Home Lived Experience Advisory Board and any sub- contractors to design the sample and survey instrument for needs identification. The final deliverable will be a report identifying key findings.

II. Return to City Council with proposal and budget appropriation by the end of November 2022.

Although staff has reviewed the programs of other jurisdictions, it is not yet possible to provide a proposal because the City of San José does not have a current census of the number of RVs within the City’s boundaries. For this reason, staff recommends to move forward with two steps.

First, as noted above in section I, staff proposes to conduct an RV vehicle census, including utilization of satellite imagery for the narrow purpose of efficient deployment of the City staff who will conduct the count. Second, because staff has programmed one RV site for up to 45 vehicles at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Teresa site and is aware of the

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

cost, staff will continue to explore possible further RV Safe Parking options that may also be in the range of the $1.6 million annual cost for the Santa Teresa location.

III. Identify service types and levels associated with survey and census results.

Staff recommends returning to City Council with a report of findings of the survey and census, which will identify service types and levels needed by people living in RVs.

IV. Leverage existing efforts to identify Emergency Interim Housing for possible RV parking sites.

Staff has already begun reviewing more than 150 locations that have been considered for Emergency Interim Housing to determine whether any sites are appropriate for RV safe parking.

Staff will continue to engage City Council Offices and the relevant community in which such sites may be located when sites are identified as potential candidates.

V. Prioritize siting of RV parking where Council Offices have identified locations of support.

This direction was brought forward in a memorandum by Vice Mayor Jones along with Councilmembers Foley, Jimenez, and Mahan, dated September 28, 2022, and was approved at the Rules and Open Government Committee on October 26, 2022. The Rules Committee clarified at that time that this direction is expressly limited to affirmatively prioritizing funding for sites when a City Council Office has identified a site within the District for which it supports an RV safe parking location. It does not bar nor impact in any way the City Council’s overall ability to vote to identify locations it deems to be appropriate for consideration nor does it create any type of veto authority for a single district. Staff recommends adoption of the proposed prioritization approach for RV safe parking previously approved at the Rules and Open Government Committee.

VI. Community engagement.

The City Council has already adopted Council Policy 6-30 regarding community outreach. This policy establishes public notice and outreach requirements in advance of certain real estate developments. City Council’s direction was to apply this policy to the community engagement process for Emergency Interim Housing. Staff recommends applying this policy to the RV Parking siting process and, subject to resource availability, continuing to seek further opportunities for community input and engagement.

VII. Explore ordinance options that standardize acceptable RV parking.

As noted, staff explored ordinance options of multiple cities and reviewed a survey conducted by the County of Los Angeles. Of the ordinances and implementation approaches identified, the City of Mountain View seems to have taken an approach that may be a starting point for further consideration within the City of San José. The approach provides a clear, easy-to-read official map of where unhoused residents in RVs are allowed to live, which is an important start. The

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

policy is standardized in a way that gives clarity to all residents, which can increase efficiency by limiting the volume of repeated calls and emails from primarily housed residents seeking to have a specific RV or group of RVs inspected and removed.

However, the City of San José must also address how to better manage lived-in vehicles that are inoperable. One of the lessons learned from large encampment operations including the FAA- directed Guadalupe Gardens clearing is that there are many particularized challenges specific to unhoused residents living in inoperable vehicles. These include not only finding suitable housing options – which can be made more challenging by higher health needs among these residents – but also addressing emotional and well-being needs of residents who are attached to the only home they may have, and ultimate transport and disposal of inoperable vehicles.

Following the starting point implemented by the City of Mountain View described above, the City of San José could further consider policies that both make it easier for a person whose vehicle is towed to dispute such a tow/recover compensation and accelerate the time within which a “good-faith” tow may be executed. As required by the California Vehicle Code, the City currently allows individuals the option to request a tow hearing by mail or over the phone.

Requests must be made within 10 days and an informal hearing will take place within two business days of the request. Further, such process could include an accelerated compensation when a tow and storage has been determined to be not in accordance with the policy. Upon completion of the analysis of the RV census and survey, staff will return to the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee with a framework for policy changes on parking ordinances and enforcement for consideration. Once the framework is approved, staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office to draft an ordinance that standardizes and provides clarity for parking of RVs on public streets.

VIII. Explore RV options related to buyback and vehicle repair.

Staff detailed the existing RV buy back pilot program in place for the Guadalupe Gardens FAA safe relocation effort.

The Housing Department piloted an RV repair program in partnership with HomeFirst during the FAA-directed Guadalupe Gardens clearance. Lessons learned include:

• Finding a mechanic who was willing to participate in the unique circumstances was difficult because most mechanics said they didn’t have ability to take additional work (even though it was paid work) or were not willing to repair vehicles outside their shops; • The scope of RV repairs that could be completed “in the field” was limited because of no access to power and lifts, certain tools, etc. More extensive repairs could be performed in the mechanic shop. In order to tow an RV to the mechanic shop, the RV owner had to show proof of ownership; as noted above, that documentation is not always available; • The cost of repairs needed were often more than the RV was worth; and • There was an effort to partner with mechanic(s) on a volunteer basis, but it was not fruitful, as they were often unreliable.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

The HomeFirst pilot RV repair program in Guadalupe Gardens repaired 14 RVs, a small fraction of the total RVs in the area that staff believes is a result of the challenges outlined. The Housing Department’s upcoming safe parking programs include flexible funding to assist with vehicle repairs for participants in the program. To consider an expanded citywide RV repair effort, staff recommends further outreach to RV retailers, existing tow companies, surveying the unhoused and evaluating the publication of a Request for Information (RFI) to determine whether such services are available and the cost. The results from the RV census and survey would also inform the RFI.

Conflict of Interest
Jacky Morales-Ferrand, Director of Housing, serves as an uncompensated member of the board of directors of Destination: Home, a California non-profit corporation. Ms. Morales-Ferrand has not participated in the selection of Destination: Home for the additional funding and will not participate in the making of any contract, contract amendment, or grant agreement awarded to Destination: Home.

CONCLUSION

Staff has determined that an RV census and survey is necessary to better understand the magnitude and nature of the needs of unhoused people living in RVs. Staff has further identified promising practices from the RV safe parking programs of other jurisdictions and recommends a path forward for considering an ordinance that could provide further clarity and consistency about where people could park their RVs and what the rules would be. Staff has also determined that the Rules and Open Government Committee prioritization for locations that already have support for RV safe parking is a workable approach to expediting these important options.

Finally, staff has identified a path to utilize the data to further inform a framework for policy changes on parking ordinances and enforcement.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP

Staff will return to the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee in the spring with the findings of the census and survey, a strategy for moving forward with approaches to address the needs identified in the survey, and a framework for policy changes on parking ordinances and enforcement.

CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSE

The recommendation in this memorandum has no effect on Climate Smart San José energy, water, or mobility goals.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

PUBLIC OUTREACH

As the subject of this memorandum is not yet to implement any specific program, community outreach has not yet been undertaken. However, in compliance with Council Policy 6-30, staff proposes to engage the community prior to moving forward with any RV safe parking location.

This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the November 29, 2022, Council meeting.

COORDINATION

The development of this memorandum was coordinated with the Police Department, the Transportation Department, the City Attorney’s Office, and the City Manager’s Budget Office.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT

No commission recommendation or input is associated with this action.

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT

The proposed expenditures at this time align with the Enterprise Priorities for Ending Homelessness and for Clean, Vibrant, Inclusive Neighborhoods and Public Life. It is also in alignment with the Council endorsed Community Plan to End Homelessness.

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS

Approval of the recommended action authorizes a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000 to contract with Destination: Home to conduct a survey and analysis of people experiencing homelessness living in recreational vehicles. The costs for this contract will be paid from the Housing and Homeless Projects appropriation within the Housing Trust Fund. Any costs for future RV safe parking sites or ongoing expenditure associated with the management of RVs will need to be addressed in the development of the 2023-2024 Proposed Budget development process.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap - Emergency Housing System Expansion: Recreational Vehicle Parking Program Analysis

BUDGET REFERENCE

The table below identifies the fund and appropriation to fund the recommended as part of this memorandum.

Fund #

Appn #

Appn Name

Current
Total
Appn Amt for Contract
2022-2023
Adopted Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Ord. No.)
440 225F Housing and
Homeless Projects
$4,465,000 $200,000 1002 10/18/22,
Ord No.
30833

CEQA

Not a Project, File No. PP17-009, Staff Reports, Assessments, Annual Reports, and Informational Memos that involve no approvals of any City action; and File No. PP17-003, Agreements/Contracts (New or Amended) resulting in no physical changes to the environment.

/s/

RAGAN HENNINGER
Deputy Director, Housing Department

For questions, please contact Ragan Henninger, Deputy Director, Housing Department, at [email protected].

Attachments
ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

Council directed staff to explore RV/oversized vehicle programs to understand what is being done in other communities and, to the extent available, what those results indicate. Staff contacted several programs directly to gather details and program results, where available. In addition, in early 2022, the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative released an in-depth study of RV programs (SEE ATTACHMENT 1-A – Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative RV Research Report). The result of this exploration follows.

City of Mountain View Program and Results
The City of Mountain View has a safe parking program that served between 130 to 150 unduplicated participants in 80 vehicles as of its summer 2022 update. The site operates on a 24/7 basis to enable participants not to have to relocate after evening hours. All of the households that participate are assessed for their vulnerability with the Vulnerability Index- Service Prioritization Decision Assessment Tool (VI-SPDAT) to determine eligibility for various housing options. Research in recent years has revealed that use of the VI-SPDAT can exacerbate racial inequities and many jurisdictions have moved to other assessment tools, as such, the local Continuum of Care is currently in the process of updating its VI-SPDAT tool. Nevertheless, it is the assessment tool used most frequently and it provides some useful insights. The Mountain View program has a 30% target of placement into permanent housing that is a systemwide benchmark set by the Continuum of Care. Of the 52 households that exited the program during Fiscal Year 20-21, the average length of stay in the program was 287 days and 16 of them (30.7%) exited to a permanent housing option.

Jewish Family Service of San Diego Program and Results
Since 2017, Jewish Family Service of San Diego (JFSSD) has operated safe parking programs in the City of San Diego. Staff has previously visited the safe automobile parking site, which includes a secure parking lot on the campus of JFFSD, as well as connection to services and access to on-site showers. JFFSD operates a total of four safe parking locations across San Diego County, one of which has accommodations for RVs, however the evaluation report obtained combines program results for all vehicle types. The results for the program year between February 2019 and November 2020 reveal 18.4% of all exits were to permanent or temporary housing options. Approximately 30% of exits are defined as positive exists, including exits to shelters. Although further RV-specific program information is not presently available, a copy of the evaluation report prepared by the University of California at San Diego is attached as ATTACHMENT 1-B – Evaluation of Jewish Family Service of San Diego’s Safe Parking Program.

Dreams for Change Program and Results
Staff contacted safe parking provider Dreams for Change in San Diego, which operates multiple safe passenger vehicle sites and has accepted RVs in the past. The Executive Director provided candid insights about the organization’s experience and rationale for discontinuing the RV portion of its program. One issue Dreams for Change faced was space constraints for the 100-car waiting list for its safe parking spaces. RVs take up more space than passenger vehicles and therefore can accommodate fewer total vehicles in a lot. Similar to experiences in San José, many people living in RVs view the vehicle as their home and are not in search of additional housing, which can make transition to permanent homes more difficult to achieve. Further, the provider found that RV disposal of abandoned vehicles was very difficult and expensive and that ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

even with restrooms provided participants would use the RV restroom and drain onto the ground.

Finally, Dreams for Change experienced a difficulty engaging residents who had 24/7 access to parking their RVs for further service connection.

Los Angeles Vehicular Homeless Outreach Project (VHOP) Program Due to increasing numbers of RV and camper residents in Los Angeles County, that County launched the VHOP Program in its second supervisorial district. In 2020, that district included at least 1,985 RVs. Staff in Los Angeles were directed to undertake a substantial report that included statewide comparisons of RV programs and parking restrictions (See ATTACHMENT 1-C – Report to Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors). Although program results could not be included in this memorandum, the VHOP program did connect with 224 unhoused RV residents and made several useful observations. First, VHOP determined that the average Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) score of these residents was an 8.4. This is a tool used by many jurisdictions to understand a person’s level of need and the report concluded that 8.4 was high enough for most to qualify for permanent supportive housing – which supports people with significant health conditions. As noted above, there are racial equity concerns about the VI-SPDAT, but the tool nevertheless provides useful insight. Staff in Los Angeles also concluded that the average cost to dispose of RVs was $500 but could go as high as $9,000 depending on the condition of the vehicle.

In addition to the VHOP findings, the report also included a review of the parking rules of more than 20 jurisdictions with concentrations of RV encampments. The report concluded that

“Excessively targeted or localized parking regulations were likely to result in shifting RV encampments to neighboring areas, triggering additional calls for parking restrictions.” (App. IV, pg 84, emphasis added)

Given resource constraints, this finding suggests that determining where people living in RVs should be allowed to exist may be a more prudent use of City resources than solely identifying places that they are not allowed to be overnight. In any event, this finding is instructive as the San José City Council seeks to determine effective and efficient approaches that will work for this community.

Los Angeles County ultimately called for the establishment of a detailed Countywide RV Encampment Pilot Program, which includes a cross-section of departmental responsibilities (see ATTACHMENT 1-C, pg. 90). Staff discussed the County’s early-stage development of this Pilot Program with Los Angeles County staff and learned that it may be rolled out in a specific portion of that County’s unincorporated area first as part of a phased approach. This insight may be helpful in considering a citywide versus phased approach within San José.

Safe Parking LA Program and Results
Staff further reviewed a safe parking program in Los Angeles that did not distinguish between RVs and cars. The program included 10 sites across the city and had enrolled at least 2,000 participants since its inception in 2017. Its most recent annual report demonstrated assistance to 395 participants, 40% of whom exited to housing (the report did not differentiate between emergency, transitional and permanent options – an important distinction to track). It included a ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

range of case management, housing plan creation, and assistance with moving towards a stable housing outcome. see ATTACHMENT 1-D – SafeParking LA Report.

City of Redwood City Safe Parking Program and Results
The City of Redwood City implemented a combination of approaches in 2020 to address lived-in RVs within its city limits. These approaches included opening an RV safe parking lot together with a permit program and added enforcement of a municipal ordinance. The effort also included providing vouchers for sewage disposal at a local dumping station, access to a water refill station, case management at the RV safe parking lot, and connection to housing. Redwood City reported a decrease from 140 RVs on city streets to an average of 12-15 RVs per night. As of February 2022, 58 households have utilized the RV safe parking program with 19 being provided access to permanent housing and more than 50% of participants receiving some type of housing subsidy. The posted results do not make clear whether the large decrease in RVs on the streets was caused by resolution of a person’s need versus simply relocating to another jurisdiction. As part of a comprehensive approach, the City of San José should attempt to address needs within the city limits to ensure its approaches do not push residents into nearby cities.

Summary and Issue Definition
This survey of programs in other communities provides some helpful context for successes and challenges. Providing a safe, sanitary option for people living in RVs can have substantial value for the unhoused residents, for their housed neighbors and small businesses and for protecting the environment. Further, the program design may include substantial service support to connect people to other resources. These are worthwhile program elements that are valued in interviews of participants.

One element not addressed in most program discussions is ensuring a clear identification of the problem the program is intended to solve. Programs may be designed with various outcomes in mind, such as:
• an explicit intent to connect people to services and permanent housing; or • designed to establish safe spaces that are not in conflict with other uses and of benefit to both the person living in the RV and other residents or businesses that may be impacted by waste disposal, fire hazards, environmental challenges or other issues.

The nature and extent of service offerings and outcome measures may be different depending upon whether the primary goal of the program is connection to permanent housing versus providing a safe, sanitary place to live.

1) Inoperable RV Programs: Inoperable lived-in vehicle options

Council directed staff to consider programs that may either repair inoperable vehicles or offer buy back assistance to purchase and dispose of RVs. The City’s Housing Department, in partnership with Destination: Home, implemented an RV buyback program, called Cash for Keys, as part of the Guadalupe Gardens Flight Path Relocation effort. Participants in the program were offered additional services, expedited referral to interim housing, and a $500 Visa gift card in exchange for their “junk” vehicles. The value of the vehicles was under $500 and/or they were deemed inoperable as determined by specially trained members of the Police Department.

ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

Participants completed a Declaration of Abandonment of Vehicle, a release and consent form. As of October 31, 2022, 34 vehicles have been removed from Columbus Park because of this program.

In addition to evaluating and implementing buyback programs, one area of consideration that must be addressed is the process of evaluating, processing, for removing, and disposing of low value/junk RVs once a resident has relinquished an RV or it is otherwise unclaimed. This process allows for RVs or vehicles valued at less than $500 to be towed directly to a dismantler to be disposed of without being first taken to or stored at a tow yard. There must be a sufficient number of trained staff, including sworn peace officers, to ensure effectiveness of the removal and disposal process. Because only certain sworn officers who have been trained accordingly may identify and qualify vehicles for direct disposal or dismantling, providing adequate staffing levels for this role is critical. Similarly, even when a person has agreed to relinquish an RV and the inoperable vehicle has been marked for tow, there must be adequate tow and storage/disposal capacity from the companies that complete these components of the process. Further, even this process is dependent upon Housing Department outreach and BeautifySJ sanitation services as part of the overall coordinated system. Ensuring a full review of the system components as part of ongoing planning will maximize the efficiency and success of any buyback program.

2) RV Ordinances: RV/lived-in vehicle ordinances

A helpful starting point for a comparative analysis of ordinances related to RVs/oversized vehicles and vehicle habitation is to understand what the law currently is within the City of San José. The current regulation governing the use of RVs or vehicles for habitation is contained in SJMC 6.46.040,

SJMC 6.46.040 – Using trailers for living or sleeping quarters – Restrictions

No person shall use any automobile trailer or house car for living or sleeping quarters in any place in the city, outside of a lawfully operated mobile home park or auto camp; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit bona fide guests of a city resident from occupying a house car or automobile trailer upon residential premises with the consent of the resident, under a permit from the health officer, for a period not to exceed forty-eight hours; nor shall this section be deemed to prohibit the temporary use of a trailer for security purposes in the guarding of commercial, industrial or institutional properties, under a permit issued by the director of neighborhood preservation.

This section has similarities to provisions found in other municipal codes that are described later in this memorandum. However, as will be discussed, there are substantial reasons to consider a comprehensive approach that may be more effective, equitable, and efficient.

ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

Additionally, there are various parking regulations in San José’s Municipal Code that can be used as a means to address RV or large vehicle parking, including the following:

SJMC 11.36. 220 – Storing vehicles on streets - Time limit and movement No person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any vehicle shall park such vehicle upon any street or alley and fail to move the vehicle more than one-tenth (1/10) of a mile from the original parking space for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two (72) hours. For the purpose of this section, attempting to eradicate or hide the tire markings placed by an authorized city employee may result in the issuance of a citation and removal of the vehicle without further warning pursuant to the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 22669.

Staff are currently able to use this code section in conjunction with authority provided by the California Vehicle Code to tow vehicles that are parked for more than a consecutive period of 72 hours without moving. However, the Parking Compliance Unit is currently not resourced to apply SJMC 11.36.220 to vehicles not displaying specific indicators (investigation criteria) that demonstrate the vehicle has likely been abandoned as most vehicles move after being warned of the parking regulation and possible enforcement. Application of SJMC 11.36.220 typically results in vehicles being moved or pushed/relocated onto adjacent streets or into neighborhoods.

The investigation process rarely results in towing. Pre-pandemic, less than 7% of vehicles investigated for SJMC 11.36.220 were towed.

The City’s Vehicle Abatement Program currently investigates potential inoperable and/or abandoned vehicles that meet certain condition criteria and are reported through SanJose311. In addition, staff proactively patrols every city street identifying and addressing vehicles that also meet these condition criteria. The program does not investigate vehicles simply because they have been parked for an extended period of time but instead uses specific vehicle condition criteria (missing or flat tires, deployed airbags, etc.) to identify vehicles that are more likely abandoned and will legally qualify to be towed. The investigation criteria are applied to all types of vehicles parked within the public right-of-way and does not single out RVs.

SJMC 11.36.260 – Stopping, standing and parking – Prohibited when signs are in place
Whenever any ordinance or resolution prohibits the stopping, standing and parking of vehicles on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day, and authorized signs or other markings are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle on or along those streets or highways, or portions thereof, to which such prohibition applies during the times specified in such ordinance or resolution.

Per Chapter 11.16, the City Traffic Engineer has the authority to install traffic control devices, which includes various parking restriction signs or markings, to regulate, guide or warn traffic.

ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

The determination of the placement of any device would be based on the result of a traffic study.

If implemented, the posted restrictions would apply to all vehicles.

SJMC 11.98.060 – Large vehicle parking prohibited

No person shall park a large vehicle in any zone posted as a “no large vehicle parking zone.”

Per Chapter 11.98, a large vehicle is one that is over six feet in height or exceeds seven feet in width. Implementation of no large vehicle zones on certain streets, or portions of a street, is at the discretion of DOT’s Director, when a determination is made based on a traffic study that parking of large vehicles creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. SJMC 11.98.060 identifies various factors that may be considered in making this determination. If implemented, the posted restrictions would apply to all large vehicles.

It is important to note that parking violations are typically enforced through the issuance of parking citations. If the vehicle meets certain legal conditions, it may be eligible to be towed.

Under the parking ordinances, the City could continue to enforce the existing provisions by issuing citations, or towing the vehicle, if it meets certain legal conditions. It is important to note that triggering enforcement action by specific vehicle type, size or category would need to be further reviewed by the CAO and administration. Additionally, as demonstrated by the litigation in Mountain View (discussed below), a more productive approach may be to revise the existing ordinances in ways that provide clarity to all parties, identify places where it is acceptable to park and live in a RV, and determine if the existing parking ordinances should be modified to include explicit expanded authority to cite or tow vehicles parked on certain streets under certain conditions.

Moving from the current City of San José ordinance, staff also reviewed ordinances implemented by Rancho Cordova, the City of Mountain View and the City of Redwood City. These ordinances reveal a range of approaches – from absolute prohibition to a collaborative model.

Rancho Cordova
Among the most absolute of prohibitions, Rancho Cordova has a vehicle habitation ordinance as follows:

10.30.030 Use of vehicles for human habitation prohibited on public property

It is unlawful for any person or persons to use a vehicle for human habitation on or in any public street, right-of-way, alleyway, parking area or any other public property, except in a designated public campground, recreational park, or licensed mobile home park.

Data was not readily available about the impacts of the Rancho Cordova approach on unhoused people living in their RVs, on other members of the community or on environmental protection efforts.

ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

City of Redwood City
Slightly less restrictive than Rancho Cordova, Redwood City has a specific code, RCC Section

14.72 N, related to living in vehicles, but instead of applying to all vehicles. It reads:

It is prohibited within the city limits of Redwood City for anyone to sleep in, cook in, or use for any other living purposes an automobile trailer, house trailer, camper, van, truck, pickup truck, recreational vehicle, boat or other vehicle.

In addition, in 2020 Redwood City opened an RV parking lot and implemented a citywide permit process by which people living in their vehicles could obtain a permit to park in certain areas for specified times.

Staff was not able to find reports directly from unhoused residents living in RVs in Redwood City, which would be a more complete assessment of program results and should be a part of any effort in San José. However, Redwood City reported a 75% decrease in on-street lived-in RVs within six months of the above changes.

City of Mountain View
The City of Mountain View initially adopted a “narrow streets” ordinance and a “bike lane” ordinance in 2019. These ordinances established limitations regarding the streets on which people who lived in their oversized vehicles could park. The narrow streets ordinance, as to parking of oversized vehicles, reads:

SEC. 19.79.4. - Parking of oversized vehicles on certain narrow streets prohibited.

a. No person shall park any oversized vehicle on narrow streets less than or equal to forty (40) feet in width, or portions thereof, as set forth by resolution of the city council.

The above City of Mountain View ordinance restricts the parking of oversized vehicles which exceed 22 feet in length, or 7 feet in width, or 7 feet in height, including boats, large trucks, and recreational vehicles (RVs).

In 2021, however, City of Mountain View was sued regarding the legality of its ordinance on various claims, including under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As part of the settlement agreement, the City identified specific public street areas covering at least a 3-mile area on which people living in their vehicles were allowed to park. See ATTACHMENT 1-E – Streets with Parking Restrictions Map. It also agreed to specific notification procedures before a tow, a 72- hour minimum time before towing could occur, and a post-tow hearing procedure for people who dispute the validity of the tow.

The settlement agreement terms have not been implemented long enough to draw conclusions about the impact those terms may have on people who live in their oversized vehicles, on communities in which such vehicles are no longer permitted or on the presence of hazards such as biowaste, engine fluid disposal or other environmental issues that can arise. However, the ATTACHMENT 1

RV PROGRAM AND RV ORDINANCE COMPARISON

Mountain View approach does demonstrate at least three practices that may be of value for ensuring equity, environmental protection, and suitable dispute resolution that may be appropriate for the City of San José. These include:

• Clear identification of where people are allowed to park. • Clear protocol for administering the ordinance, including notice procedures, that can be easily understood by vehicle owners or inhabitants, followed by staff and shared publicly. • Sufficient dispute resolution practices for a resident to contest the storage of their vehicle and any tow.

The Long Road Home:

Housing and Service Needs of People
Who Inhabit Oversized Vehicles in
Oakland’s Public Parking

Authors:

Graham J. Pruss PhD
Kelly R. Knight PhD
Ned Resnikoff MPP
Margot Kushel MD

2 | Page

Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 5 A. Vehicle Residency in the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties ............................................ 5 B. Safe RV Parking and Rental Parking Programs ........................................................................... 6 C. COROVA Report Background ......................................................................................................... 7

3. Study Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Study Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 9 A. How people came to live in oversized vehicles in Oakland ....................................................... 9 B. Housing Preferences ..................................................................................................................... 10 C. Health and Social Service Engagement ..................................................................................... 11 D. Perspectives on Safe RV Parking and proposed Rental Parking Programs ......................... 12

5. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 14

6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 15

7. About the Benioff Homelessness & Housing Initiative ................................................................... 16

8. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 16

9. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 17 A: Study Sample Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 17

10. References ......................................................................................................................................... 18

3 | Page

Executive Summary
We conducted in-depth interviews with residents of oversized vehicles (n=48) from across five sites of public parking in Oakland, CA during July 2021 to understand their housing and service needs. The interviews assessed resident’s views on the current Safe RV Parking Program and a proposed Rental Parking Program model, based on Oakland land-use code changes adopted in 2021. Safe RV Parking Programs provide long-term parking spaces with security and access to water, electricity, mobile showers, toilets, laundry, and health and social services.

A proposed Rental Parking Program model would provide long-term privately operated parking spaces with security, water, electricity, hygiene facilities and would adhere to California State Mobile home park laws, grant tenants’ rights to their occupants, and would not require that renters participate in social services or case management.

Overview of findings
Housing Preferences:
• Participants preferred staying in oversized vehicles to other unsheltered settings or congregate shelters.
• Participants were reluctant to accept non-permanent housing options (e.g., rapid rehousing or transitional housing) because they feared they would return to homelessness after the subsidies or temporary housing came to an end. They were not willing to give up their vehicles for a non-permanent exit from homelessness. • The majority would have preferred to live in permanent housing but noted that they could not afford to do so. A minority reported preferring living in their vehicles to housing.

Health and Social Service Engagement:
• Participants had limited engagement with social services or healthcare. • Participants were unaware of eligibility requirements for the currently operating Safe RV Parking Program.
• Participants concerns about the security of their vehicle when they were not in them (e.g., tickets, towing, loss of property) made them reluctant to seek social services or healthcare.

Benefits of currently operating Safe RV Parking and a proposed Rental Parking Program:
• Participants expressed positive opinions of Safe RV Parking, noting the following potential benefits: security, hygiene infrastructure, a location other than public space. • Participants expressed positive opinions of a proposed Rental Parking Program model noting the positive benefits: security, hygiene infrastructure, a location other than public space, and lease/tenancy rights and community building. • Study participants said they were willing to pay approximately one-third of their income for rent in the proposed Rental Parking Program model.

Key Study Recommendations:
• Consider expanding Safe RV Parking as a form of non-congregate shelter. • Safe RV Parking residents should be offered housing-directed services, although they may lack of enthusiasm for programs that offer only short-term interventions. • Study the feasibility of implementing a Rental Parking Program model and identify potential sites. Feasibility studies should explore cost, funding, regulatory structures, and private property management.

4 | Page

1. Introduction
A growing number of people experience homelessness in their vehicles across the Western United States.1 People experiencing homelessness may choose vehicles over other options (e.g. encampments, emergency shelter, or staying intermittently with friends or family) because they see their vehicle as more secure and safe.i People who live in their vehicles because they have no housing meet the Federal definition of homelessness, as set out by the Homelessness Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act and are considered to be “unsheltered.”2 In the United States, approximately 39% of people experiencing homelessness are unsheltered; in California, 70% of people experiencing homelessness are unsheltered.3
Without accessible, legal, private space for parking, vehicle residents park in public parking spaces, where they risk harm from ticketing, impoundment, vandalism, and theft.4 Up to half of vehicles lived in by people experiencing homelessness are “oversized,” such as recreational vehicles (RVs), detached trailers, school busses, or commercial trucks.ii Municipal codes restrict oversized vehicles to parking overnight in industrial zones. These zones tend to lack trash receptacles, toilets, fresh water, and be far from social services.

Few studies have examined the social determinants, conditions, or outcomes of experiencing homelessness in vehicles.5 However, there is limited research focused on those who occupy an oversized vehicle in public spaces.6 In Spring 2021, City of Oakland staff reached out to researchers at the University of California San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (BHHI) to learn more from residents of oversized vehicles about their housing preferences, service utilization, and preferences regarding existing and proposed parking programs. Researchers at the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (BHHI) conducted the COVID-19-Oriented Resident of Oversized Vehicle Assessment (COROVA) to investigate this population’s personal preferences, needs, barriers, and capacity to access medical care and social or housing services during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to inform the development of interventions to incorporate residents of oversized vehicles into housing, social services, and medical services.

i Although many vehicle residents do not self-identify as homeless, people who live in vehicles are considered to be homeless by the current Federal definition of homelessness. People who experience homelessness are classified as either sheltered or unsheltered. People living in their cars are classified as “unsheltered” according to the US Code: “an individual or family with a primary nighttime reside nce that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground” (USC Title 42, §11302)
ii California Vehicle Code 630 & 670 defines vehicles that exceed 25 feet in length, 80 inches in width, or 82 inches in height as “oversized”
5 | Page

2. Background
A. Vehicle Residency in the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties Vehicles are the most common sleeping location of people who experience unsheltered homelessness in six of the nine California Bay Area counties (Table 1). According to the 2019 Point-In-Time (PIT) counts,iii vehicle residents represented 26% of the total homeless population (in the eight Bay Area counties that recorded vehicular homelessness) and 36% of unsheltered people.7 San Mateo County had the largest proportion of vehicle residency, representing 45% of the total homeless population and 75% of the unsheltered population.

Table 1: Vehicle Residents (VR) in Point-In-Time (PIT) reports in the nine SF Bay Area Counties (2019).

Alameda County reported the largest number of vehicle residents in the Bay Area. The largest city in Alameda County is Oakland, which is home to over half of the county’s total homeless population. The official Point-In-Time Count in Oakland showed that vehicle residents represented 45% of the unsheltered population (N=3210).8 Roughly half of these 1,430 vehicle residents slept in oversized automobiles.

iii Due to concerns over risks of COVID-19 transmission, many continuums of care – including Oakland – did not conduct their biennial 2021 PIT count. Data from the recently conducted 2022 PIT count will not be available until late Spring.

6 | Page

B. Safe RV Parking and Rental Parking Programs
A growing number of communities across the US operate “safe parking programs” to provide vehicle residents temporary off-street places where they can access a safe place to park, water, toilets, case management and housing navigation.9 Oakland launched Safe RV Parking sites for oversized vehicles in 2019, shortly after Alameda County began an overnight-only Safe Car Parking for non-oversized vehicles. Oakland’s Safe RV Parking sites are managed and operated by local organizations, including the Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) and Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS). These sites provide long-term parking spaces with 24-hour security and access to water, electricity, mobile showers, toilets, laundry, and health and social services.

The City of Oakland proposed land use and policy changes in 2021 that would allow for the private development of Rental Parking Programs. A proposed Rental Parking Program model would adhere to the California State Mobile Home and Special Occupancy Parks Acts,iv and grant tenants’ rights to their occupants.10 Table 2 summarizes the similarities and differences between the existing Safe RV Parking Program and a proposed Rental Parking Program model.

We asked COROVA study participants about their thoughts and preferences regarding these.

Table 2: Characteristics of Oakland’s currently operating Safe RV Parking and proposed Rental Parking Program model

iv California State Law: HSC §18200-18774

7 | Page

C. COROVA Report Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in the number of people living in oversized vehicles throughout Oakland. Oakland’s 2019 Point-in-Time (PIT) count found that 703 people living in RVs, compared to 413 in 2018. It found 727 people living in standard-sized (non-oversized) vehicles, compared to 399 in 2018.11 The 2021 count was cancelled; the results from the 2022 count will be available later this Spring.v In early 2021, the Office of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf contacted the University of California San Francisco Benioff Homelessness & Housing Initiative (BHHI) to learn more about Oakland residents who inhabit oversized vehicles in Oakland. Oakland operates several programs that provided off-street parking space for oversized vehicles (detailed in Table 2, above).

Policymakers wanted to know about the housing and service needs of people who were not using these programs and their thoughts on a proposed land use change to support development of rentable parking spaces, similar to mobile home or RV parks (The proposed Rental Parking Program model).

In response, BHHI researchers worked with City of Oakland staff and service providers to develop the COROVA study. We conducted interviews at a variety of study sites, including busy streets where the inhabitants of RVs and detached trailers described moving regularly and cul- de-sacs where people had inhabited immobile vehicles for years. At some sites, residents of oversized vehicles constructed outdoor food gardens and verandas for visitors; at others, residents built multi-story structures on top of immoveable RVs and detached trailers.

Researchers consulted frequently with city staff, social service providers, parking enforcement officers, and community health outreach workers. They provided guidance in the selection of study sites, development of interview questions, the amount of participant compensation, and strategies to recruit participants.

v The 2022 PIT was conducted in February, 2022, but results are not yet available. 8 | Page

3. Study Methods
We designed this study to understand the preferences of and use of housing and social services among residents of oversized vehicles. We conducted semi-structured interviews that focused on participant background and experiences with, preferences for, and access to social and housing services. Unlike survey research, qualitative research does not estimate proportions or provide numerical estimates.

Our research teams conducted 48 semi-structured interviews in English and Spanish with adult residents of oversized vehicles throughout West Oakland (see Figure 1) during July 2021.

Interviews lasted between 20 minutes and two hours. We recruited study participants at five sites using convenience and snowball (referral) sampling. We audio recorded and selectively transcribed interviews into an online survey form. We then coded and thematically analyzed the data. We included verbatim quotes from our study participants in this report to illustrate the overarching themes.

1. Wood St

2. Laney College Neighborhood

3. Union Point Neighborhood

4. Alameda Ave

5. Independent Rd

Figure 1: Study Sites in Oakland (CA)

9 | Page

4. Study Findings
A. How people came to live in oversized vehicles in Oakland We asked participants the city where they lived when they were last housed, what events or conditions led to their becoming homeless, and their rationales for staying in oversized vehicles at their current locations.vi

Theme A1: Three quarters of study participants became homeless in Alameda County, and one-half became homeless in Oakland.vii Most participants reported losing their previous housing because of employment loss and/or medical/mental health crises. Many had been evicted due to their inability to pay rising rents or the actions of others (such as a housemate failing to pay/stealing rent from a sublessee). Participants explained that they stayed where they were staying (as opposed to on private property or in a protected setting), because they could not identify any private property or protected space to stay in.

Theme A2: Study participants lived where they did to preserve connections with local neighborhoods, employment opportunities, family, friends, social services and healthcare. Participants parked near their childhood homes, families, or neighborhoods. Some moved from nearby areas because of parking restrictions. Some parked near opportunities for formal and informal work, and some near medical or substance use treatment facilities to maintain access to care.

vi All participant names are pseudonyms
vii The study employed a qualitative methodology focused on participants’ experiences. We did not design it to estimate proportions. Thus, these proportions should be interpreted cautiously.

This [place where I park my vehicle] is usually where I resort to. It’s only comfortable because it’s what I know and I feel safest. First of all [a nearby business] has a bathroom. Second of all, I just feel more safe. It’s not like I’m in the middle of nowhere where there’s no one around. If something happens, someone can hear you scream. I grew up in Alameda, and other than that this is where I’ve been . - Amy, 32-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 3 years

It means a lot to me to be here in Oakland living in my camper. As little and old as it is, I'm still proud of what I have. It's mine, I paid for it. Some people are [living in a vehicle] because of their income, their health - there's all different types of situations that play into why people are here. Just because they're in a camper doesn't mean they're on drugs. And if they are, look to the reason why they are.

Everyone has a story, and they can't just fit everybody's story like it's just one person. I t's different, it's individuality. It's the truth.
- Alyssa, 40-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 4 years

You could say [the people who live in this place] are like family. When I need something, I ask one of them and they either help or try to help me. When I go to work, they take care of my place. We take care of each other here, and it’s a little difficult because when you return someone stole this or that from you, but you can’t always be here too. It’s hard to explain but I do feel a part of Oakland, a resident of Oakland.
- Cecilia, 40-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 8 years

10 | Page

B. Housing Preferences
We asked participants about their preferences for housing, asking participants to evaluate how living in their vehicle compared to other forms of shelter (e.g., unsanctioned tent encampment, congregate shelters). Participants described their experiences with temporary housing subsidies and temporary rental support.

Theme B1: Participants preferred oversized vehicles to staying in congregate shelters or in other unsheltered settings. Participants perceived that their oversized vehicles offered more safety for their property and themselves compared to other forms of unsheltered homelessness. Participants reported that they would not trade their vehicle residence for a place in a congregate shelter because they wanted to stay with their pets, partners, and property. They feared leaving their vehicle unsecured due to concerns about theft, damage or fines. Even if offered a place to safely store their vehicle, they noted that they would not choose to stay in a congregate shelter.

Theme B2: Participants did not trust rapid rehousing (or other temporary subsidies or housing), for fear that they would return to homelessness. Participants described low levels of trust in temporary housing programs. Some participants had re-entered homelessness when short-term housing subsidies expired, while others had been waiting years for a permanent housing voucher. Participants were not willing to trade their vehicle for temporary housing subsidy or temporary housing due to their experiences and fears of returning to homelessness without their vehicle.

Theme B3: The majority of participants preferred permanent affordable housing but could not afford rent and cost of living. A minority preferred to remain living in their vehicles. Most participants reported regular income from low paying work or benefits; however, they could not afford the cost of housing and living in Oakland. Study participants reported a median annual income of $9,000 (range $0-$32,800), well below an average annual cost of at least $20,000 to rent a 1-bedroom apartment in Oakland during our study. 12 My current residency is that RV, motor home, and that's my life. If I ain't got that, I'm totally screwed because I ain't got no place to go... at least this way here I have a little more stability for me. Not much, but a little bit. And I DON'T want to be in a tent. - Enola, 49-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 4 years

It doesn't seem plausible that I would be able to get housing out here. All these pla ces that they're building, they always say a portion will be low-income. I went through Bay Area Community Services and if THEY couldn't help me?! Then I know I'm screwed. If I don't hit the lotto, if I don't find a leather bag or manila folder on the ground full of money - let's be honest, I don't see it happening. - Jemal, 33-year-old man, vehicle resident for 4 years

I miss having place at night where I can feel safe, lock my door, and take a shower, draw a bath, or go pee. I hella miss using a regular bathroom. But I’m not going to lie to myself and try to get something I can’t afford. And the hardest part is saving up the money to move in. [Landlords] want you to show them you have three times rent in your bank account. It’s hard to save up that kind of money when you have to buy all these things like propane, gas, this and that. There’s no way you’re going to save money [to rent an apartment].
- Amy, 32-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 3 years,

11 | Page

Some participants preferred access to a short-term Safe Parking spot, hoping that they would be able to move into permanent housing quickly. Others preferred a longer-term parking space where they could await permanent housing vouchers. Some participants preferred to live someplace where they could stay permanently in their oversized vehicle, such as an RV park with tenant protections.

C. Health and Social Service Engagement
We asked participants about their awareness of, access to, and utilization of health and social services.

Theme C1: Participants had limited engagement with social services or healthcare.

Most participants reported not being engaged with social services, healthcare or housing navigation services, and being unable to access trash receptables and toilets. Although one large site we recruited participants from received regular visits from social service outreach and mobile care, participants in our other study sites reported rarely receiving visits from outreach workers.

Theme C2: Participants expressed reluctance to seek social services or healthcare due to fears of consequences from leaving their vehicle (e.g., tickets, towing, loss of property). Participants reported barriers to accessing services. These include risk to their vehicle and possessions if left unattended, lack of transportation to services, lack of familiarity with available social service programs, and inability to access online resources due to advanced age, limited English-language proficiency, or limited literacy.

If the social workers come out to talk to people living in RVs, and people aren't home, they never leave contact information or anything. They never follow up. I never heard back from them. I've been in the street three years and they never helped me with anything. - Carlos, 38-year-old man, vehicle resident for 2 years

It's hard for me to leave for a long period of time because I'm scared that I'm going to come back and [the RV] is going to be gone. Or somebody's going to have ransacked it and everything. It's hard for me to leave for a long period of time, but sometimes I just gotta do it. I go and hope and pray for the best, and come back. And, whatever they decide to leave me is what they left me, be grateful and go on. It's really hard.
- Enola, 49-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 4 years

Of course, I would want affordable housing. I apply every time there’s a Section 8. But, I don’t think that’s the problem, I don’t think there’s enough housing or apartments for the people out here. They have to build those first before they can make those possible. I think they should make more things accessible for people, especially with children - not just adults. We don’t always want to live in a shelter and work for their help. I do good on my own. I go to work. My kid goes to school. But, it would be nice if we had more security. Even though we live in an RV, we still try to function like normal people.
- Joy, 32-year-old woman, vehicle resident for 3 years
12 | Page

Participants described negative experiences with law enforcement, city officials, and news media. As a result, they tended to distrust outsiders. We observed police officers ticket and impound vehicles while we were conducting interviews. This event led some nearby vehicle residents to decline study participation, and others to discuss the trauma they experienced from their displacement and property loss.

D. Perspectives on Safe RV Parking and proposed Rental Parking Programs We detailed the characteristics of the currently operating Safe RV Parking Program and the proposed Rental Parking Program model (see Table 2 on page 6), then asked participants to describe their perspectives on both programs, including perceived benefits and potential drawbacks.

D1. Views on Currently Operating Safe RV Parking Programs Theme D1: Study participants identified benefits and barriers to currently operating Safe RV Parking Programs. Benefits included protection from tickets, impoundment, theft and vandalism, which participants noted in their current situations. Participants noted that Safe RV Parking Programs could be beneficial due to their offering security for their vehicle, as well as bathrooms, water, electricity, garbage receptacles, and access to social services.

Participants noted the following barriers to Safe RV Parking Program participation: lack of understanding about eligibility and availability, as well as restrictions on personal behaviors and family visitation.

[My trailer] was something, especially at my age, that I was able to proudly say was my own.

Something I worked hard for, that I didn't have to buy illegally. Something I didn't have to steal.

Something I was blessed with, was able to maintain, and make look good. It's had a little wear and tear since I've been gone. I went to jail, bailed out on a couple different warrants because I was scared I was going to lose my stuff. An officer had seen me sleeping in my vehicle one day after I got off work. He knew who I was, he knew what I was, he knew my truck had been parked there for a while. So, he harassed me and threw me in jail. I thought I was going to get 15 years, I ended up getting probation. So, I got back out here, to my pad, to my house. I see it the way it is (now), it’s like there’s been a hurricane in it. I’ve seen my stuff all the way down the street, in different areas of camp, and with people in different areas. It is what it is.
- Tim, 34-year-old man, vehicle resident for 9 months

[Study participant was parked adjacent to a currently operating Safe RV Parking Site] They don't really come tell us about it [the currently operating Safe RV Parking Site]. There's like a group that does activism type meetings and stuff, but I don't even know if they're officially working with the city, or anything like that. Because the information they have isn't all the correct either. I don't really know too much about it other than it's behind a gate. I don't think that they get any more benefit than [parking on the street)]. If anything, they might even lose some things. But, to each their own. I don’t know what they’re really doing.
- Jake, 39-year-old man, vehicle resident for 8 months

13 | Page

D2. Views on a proposed Rental Parking Program model
Theme D2: Study participants responded positively to the proposed Rental Parking Program model. In addition to the benefits from utilizing Safe RV Parking, they recognized additional benefits to Rental Parking, including lease/tenancy rights and community building.

Study participants reported being willing to pay approximately one-third of their ($9000 median annual) income for rent in a proposed Rental Parking Program model – or, $250 per month.

My RV would be one less RV out here that’s taking up the sidewalks. You know, people could use the parking space, because I’d be in a designated area, that’s reserved [in the proposed Rental Parking program model]. It's another level of stability, because I won't be in fear of the cops coming and saying, ‘Hey, you have to (move)’ - because, you know, every now and then everybody has to move for three days so that they can do a deep clean. And I won't have to worry about that . I would be in a gated community, so my belongings would be more secure, because there's always a neighbor looking out. Nobody's gonna be dinking around in my stuff, because you make it your business to look out for your neighbor. It would bring more community. It makes things warmer.

There's just certain times when you need the support of a community. - Carl, 42-year-old man, vehicle resident for 5 years

14 | Page

5. Recommendations
While the currently operating Safe RV Parking programs have services (e.g., case management and housing assistance), many residents doubt that the housing options they are presented with offer enough stability to make it worthwhile for them to give up their oversized vehicles. While most participants preferred housing, they were cautious. They noted that if homeless, their oversized vehicle was preferable to other options (congregate shelters, being unsheltered without a vehicle). They would only relinquish their vehicle for a housing option that they believed would be permanent. They recognized that transitional housing or short-term subsidies (like in rapid rehousing programs) presented a high risk of returning to homelessness—and therefore, were unacceptable. Residents of oversized vehicles carefully considered the benefits and drawbacks of housing options relative to the risks of losing access to their vehicles.

The participants noted that both the existing Safe Parking Program and a proposed Rental Parking Program model had benefits compared to their current situation of living in vehicles outside of designated or private settings. Recognizing the increased interest in non-congregate shelter options, and based on our findings, our recommendations include:

1. Expand currently operating Safe RV Parking Programs for people who inhabit oversized vehicles. Consider these a form of non-congregate shelter that can serve as interim housing while individuals await permanent exits.

2. Continue to seek long-term housing vouchers for residents in Safe RV Parking and a proposed Rental Parking model. Understand and plan for the possibility that they may reject other offers (e.g., rapid rehousing) for fear that they will be left worse-off than they are currently.

3. Identify sites and conduct feasibility studies about a proposed Rental Parking Program model, exploring costs, funding, regulatory structures, and private property management. Assume that residents may be willing to pay up to one-third of their income in rent, while recognizing that their annual incomes and thus cost recovery, will be low.

15 | Page

6. Discussion
In this study of residents of oversized vehicles in Oakland, we found that vehicle residents were from Oakland or other parts of Alameda County. While disconnected from social services, they sought a stable place to live and participate in their community. These findings are consistent with prior research.13 They were extremely low-income. Study Participants generally preferred housing to living in their oversized vehicles, but preferred living in their vehicles to other forms of homelessness (i.e., congregate shelters or other forms of being unsheltered). They recognized the fragility of current homelessness exits, fearing that without permanent subsidies or permanently affordable housing, they would return to homelessness. They were unwilling to trade the relative safety of their vehicles for a short-term solution, fearing that they would be worse off when the short-term solution ended. While in their vehicles, participants wanted a stable space to park, where they could be safe from personal harm, property theft, vandalism, tickets, and impounds.

While study participants identified benefits to Safe RV Parking Programs (e.g., security, hygiene facilities, electricity, water, and access to mobile services), they reported barriers to participating (for example, not understanding eligibility requirements, lack of availability, and restrictions on personal behaviors and visitation). Study participants responded positively to a proposed Rental Parking Program model and were willing to pay one-third of their income to receive tenancy rights, security, bathrooms, and the opportunity to develop a community.

Our study results demonstrate a need to (1) expand the currently operating Safe RV Parking Programs for people who want to move from their vehicles into housing, (2) develop the Rental Parking Program for people who want to secure a lease and tenancy rights, and (3) increase opportunities for permanent housing exits through long-term vouchers or permanently affordable housing.

16 | Page

7. About the Benioff Homelessness & Housing Initiative
The UCSF Benioff Homelessness & Housing Initiative (BHHI) is a research and policy translation center at UCSF that focuses on preventing and ending homelessness through the development and translation of research into evidence-based action. The BHHI uses the principles of strategic science, to engage with end-users to develop actionable research questions.

8. Acknowledgements
This report was funded by the University of California San Francisco Benioff Homelessness & Housing Initiative at the Center for Vulnerable Populations. We are grateful to our colleagues and funders who made this research possible. Our special thanks to COROVA research staff:

Haley Bayuga Graff, Celeste Enriquez, and Jake Sonnenberg and the residents of oversized vehicles in Oakland, who shared their stories and insights.

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the City of Oakland, Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf, in addition to city staff and service providers including Peter Radu, Darin Ranelletti, LaTonda Simmons, Jasmine Pournavab, Talia Y. Rubin LCSW, and Oakland Police Lt. Sean Fleming; Lucy Kasdin LCSW, Ted Ames PhD with the Street Health Program at Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless; Ryan Wythe, Jose Garcia, and Sonni Belcher-Collins RN with LifeLong Medical Care Street Health team; and Noha Aboelata MD, Maggie McNair, Matthew Long and Lee Jackson with the Street Team Outreach Medical Program (STOMP) at the Roots Community Health Center.

The views expressed here are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the University of California or the City of Oakland.

17 | Page

9. Appendix
A: Study Sample Characteristics
Study Participants (n=48)
Age, median (range) 41.5 (23-74)
Months currently homeless, median (range) 48 (1-300)
Total months inhabiting vehicles, median (range) 42 (1-312) Months inhabiting current vehicle, median (range) 11 (.5-120) Total number of vehicles inhabited, median (range) 3.5 (1-200) Annual income, median (range) 8.9K (0-32.8k)
Male, No. (%) 27 (56%)
Black/African American, No. (%) 11 (23%)
US Veteran, No. (%) 3 (6%)
Disabling Condition, No. (%) 29 (60%)
Chronically Homeless (Federal Definition), No. (%) 27 (56%) Never Slept in an Emergency Shelter, No. (%) 31 (65%)
Didn’t Use Social Services that required them to leave vehicle in Past Year, No. (%)
42 (87%)
Has Access to Traditional Housing, No. (%) 6 (13%)
Alameda County resident before housing loss 38 (79%)
Table 3: Sociodemographic Background of COROVA Study Participants

18 | Page

10. References

1 (Berton 2021) Berton, M. (2021). The Rise of Vehicular Homelessness and the Safe Parking Movement. Kennedy School Review (41-46). https://ksr.hkspublications.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/18/2021/08/KSR-2021-full.pdf
2 (HUD 2021) US Department of Housing and Urban Development (2021). Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (2009). Retrieved from https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/hearth-act/ 3 (HUD 2020) US Department of Housing and Urban Development: The 2020 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress. Retrieved from
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2020-AHAR-Part-1.pdf (California State Senate 2021) Fact Sheet: Homelessness in California (2020). Retrieved from https://shou.senate.ca.gov/sites/shou.senate.ca.gov/files/Homelessness%20in%20CA%202020%20 Numbers.pdf
4 (Pruss and Cheng 2020) Pruss, G. J. and Cheng, K. (2020). The “Punitive Push” on Mobile Homes.

Cityscape: Journal for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 22(2). 87-94.

Retrieved from: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol22num2/article6.html (NHLC 2019) National Homelessness Law Center. (2019). Housing Not Handcuffs 2019: Ending the Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

Retrieved from: https://homelesslaw.org/wp-c ontent/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOT- HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf
5 (Hartwigsen and Null 1991) Hartwigsen, G. and Null, R. (1991). Full- Timers. Journal of Housing for the Elderly. 7(1):133-14.
(Counts and Counts 1996) Counts, D. R. and Counts, D. A. (1996). Over the Next Hill: An Ethnography of RVing Seniors in North America. Ontario, CA: Broadview Press. (Mendoza 1997) Mendoza, C. L. (1997). Not a House but a Home: The Centennial Car Camp for the Homeless. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. 59. 30-50. (Cerveny and Baur 2020) Cerveny, L. K. and Baur, J. R. (2020). Homelessness and Nonrecreational Camping on National Forests and Grasslands in the United States: Law Enforcement Perspectives and Regional Trends. Journal of Forestry. 118(2). 139–153. 6 (Southard 1997) Southard, P.A. Dee. (1997). Uneasy sanctuary: Homeless campers living on rural public lands. Visual Studies. 12(2):47-64
(Wakin 2005) Wakin, M. (2005). Not Sheltered, Not Homeless: RVs as Makeshifts. American Behavioral Scientist. 48(8). 1013-1032.
(Wakin 2014) Wakin, M. (2014). Otherwise Homeless: Vehicle Living and the Culture of Homelessness.

Boulder, USA: FirstForum Press.
7 ( Applied Survey Research 2019a) Alameda County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from https://homelessness.acgov.org/homelessness- assets/docs/2019AlamedaCountyHomelessCountReport.pdf
(Applied Survey Research 2019b) Marin County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from
https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/files/servicepages/2019_07/2019hirdreport_marincounty _final.pdf
(Applied Survey Research 2019c) San Francisco County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDReport_SanFrancisco_FinalDraft-1.pdf (Applied Survey Research 2019d) Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from
https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2019%20SCC%20Homeless%20Census%20and %20Survey%20Report.pdf
(Applied Survey Research 2019e) Solano County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from
http://nebula.wsimg.com/830dd7dcf077684b5f5a500f7aafdbed?AccessKeyId=B6ADA8353DCF8737 BDC0&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
19 | Page

(Applied Survey Research 2019f) Sonoma County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/24921/2019-S onoma- County-Homeless-Census-and-Survey-Comprehensive-Report?bidId= ( Focus Strategies 2019) 2019 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey. Retrieved from https://www.smcgov.org/media/33506/download?inline= ( Contra Costa Health Services 2020) 2020 Contra Costa County Annual Point in Time Count Report.

Retrieved from https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2020.pdf (County of Napa 2019) Homeless and Housing Services Division: 2019 Point In Time Count. Retrieved from
https://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNet/DownloadDocument.aspx?type=BOS&doctype=ATTA CHMENT&id=51074
8 ( Applied Survey Research 2019g) City of Oakland Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from https://cao-946 12.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2019-Oakland-Point-In- Time-Count.pdf
9 (McElwain et al., 2021) McElwain, L., Schiele, D., Waheed, L., Weare, C., and Nadel, G. (2021). Smart Practices for Safe Parking: A nationwide review of safe parking programs for people sheltering in vehicles. University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy and the Center for Homeless Inquiries. Retrieved from: https://priceschool.usc.edu/wp-c ontent/uploads/2021/06/Smart- Practices-for-Safe-Parking-USC-2021.pdf
10 (California State Legislature 2022:18200-18874). Health and Safety Code: Division 13. Housing. Part

2.1-2.3. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=HSC&division =13.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=&nodetreepath=21
11 (Applied Survey Research 2019g:14) City of Oakland Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019. Retrieved from https://cao-9 4612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2019-Oakland-Point- In-Time-Count.pdf
12 (Weilbaker 2021) Weilbaker, S. (2021, July 2). The Average Rent in Oakland. ApartmentGuide.com.

Retrieved from https://www.apartmentguide.com/blog/average-rent-in-oakland/ (Zumper 2022) Oakland, CA Rent Prices. Zumper.com. Retrieved from: https://www.zumper.com/rent- research/oakland-ca
13 (Counts and Counts 1996) Counts, D. R. and Counts, D. A. (1996). Over the Next Hill: An Ethnography of RVing Seniors in North America. Ontario, CA: Broadview Press. (Mendoza 1997) Mendoza, C. L. (1997). Not a House but a Home: The Centennial Car Camp for the Homeless. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. 59. 30-50. ( Southard 1997) Southard, P.A. Dee. (1997). Uneasy sanctuary: Homeless campers living on rural public lands. Visual Studies. 12(2):47-64
(Wakin 2005) Wakin, M. (2005). Not Sheltered, Not Homeless: RVs as Makeshifts. American Behavioral Scientist. 48(8). 1013-1032.
(Wakin 2014) Wakin, M. (2014). Otherwise Homeless: Vehicle Living and the Culture of Homelessness.

Boulder, USA: FirstForum Press.
(Cerveny and Baur 2020) Cerveny, L. K. and Baur, J. R. (2020). Homelessness and Nonrecreational Camping on National Forests and Grasslands in the United States: Law Enforcement Perspectives and Regional Trends. Journal of Forestry. 118(2). 139–153.

Evaluation of Jewish Family Service of
San Diego’s Safe Parking Program
Two-Year Summary Research Report

Prepared by
Leslie R. Lewis, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Mirle Rabinowitz Bussell, Ph.D.

Todd Levinson, M.P.A.

The Bioregional Center for Sustainability Science, Planning and Design The Department of Urban Studies and Planning
UC San Diego

January 2022

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 1 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 2 Table of Contents

Gratitude and Dedication 3
Executive Summary 4
- Key Findings
- Recommendations Based on Findings
Scope of the Study 9
Methodology 11
Broader Context of Safe Parking Programs in the U.S. 13 Quantitative Findings 15
- Demographics
- Household Exits
- Length of Stay
- Household Returns
- Possible Effects of the COVID Pandemic
Qualitative Findings 23
- Proximate and Upstream Contributors to Homelessness
- Barriers to Becoming Stably Rehoused
- Impacts of the JFS Safe Parking Program on Clients
Educational Outcomes/Benefits of Accompanying UC San Diego Course 29 Recommendations 32

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 2 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 3 Gratitude and Dedication

This research study and its accompanying course were made possible by a generous gift from Mark and Hanna Gleiberman, two civic leaders intent on alleviating suffering, supporting transformative learning experiences for students, and fostering health, opportunity, and compassion for all San Diego neighbors. Thank you for seeing the value in research, and its importance for effecting positive change.

This research is also only possible because of the enthusiasm and collaborative spirit of our community partner, Jewish Family Service of San Diego. Opening one’s program up to the scrutiny of evaluation research takes courage, faith, and a genuine desire to make life better for people. Our presence on the parking lots meant added labor, coordination, expense, and the risk that feedback might be critical. Nonetheless, from direct line staff all the way up to the administrative and managerial leadership at JFS, we never encountered resistance or complaint.

On the contrary, there was consistent willingness across the organization to facilitate this research, and a clear desire to learn from it. For that partnership, we are grateful. Collaborations between university researchers and local service providers offer a way for us all to understand problems, solutions, and the effectiveness of any strategies we might envision to get there. Such cooperation and shared purpose is fundamental to our collective efforts to solve the seemingly intractable challenge of homelessness in San Diego and the U.S.

We would like to thank the student researchers who were members of our first and second year course series.
1 They played a critical role in this research. Their curiosity, empathy, generous listening, sharp minds, and hard work brought forth rich data and analysis. We could not have accomplished the breadth and depth of this research without them.

Finally, we dedicate this research to the thousands of unhoused San Diegans who have used the JFS Safe Parking Program, and the 128 individuals and families who have shared their stories and insights with us. We have been captivated by your life narratives and humbled by the resilience and kindness you consistently demonstrate, even in the face of great hardship. We are deeply grateful, and hope that our findings will contribute to effective policies and helpful services for everyone across the county. It is our fervent hope that all San Diegans (and all people everywhere) be healthy, safe, secure, and stably housed.

1 Year 1 cohort: Enrique Arcilla, Sable Beltran, Michelle Castro-Pilar, Bryan Chan, Hannah Davis, Aaron Chen, Nicolas Escoto, Madeline Froemming, Mayra Garcia, Janet Gleason, Jason Hefner, Xinyi Huang, Hannah Kreitman, Myah Lunceford, Daniela Montes-Flores, Alexandra Reep, Celia Sanchez-Zelaya, Needhi Sharma, Dominic Sistena, Natalie Tran, Amy Truong, Cindy Vides; Year 2 cohort: Allyn Reyes, Samaya Elder, Yao Fu, Clarissa Maloney, Leslie Aparicio, Harris Liner, Jorge Lopez, Lina Lew, Ryan Welsh, Shunyi Hu, Michael Castaneda, Kaelyn Emery, Jordan Hinze, Griffen Dempsey, Stephanie Holder, Yichen Wang, Megha Aepala, Valeria Ortega.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 3 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 4 Executive Summary

This report summarizes the research findings of a two-year evaluation of the Safe Parking Program (SPP) run by Jewish Family Service of San Diego which operates its program on four separate lots in San Diego County. Our team utilized a mixed-methods study combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. Using data from the County of San Diego Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), we analyzed baseline statistics on 1,096 SPP client households. This was combined with oral histories that we conducted with 128 SPP clients, six listening sessions with 55 SPP clients, and four listening sessions with 15 frontline staff.

The broad aim of this research has been to understand how the safe parking program model fits into a larger strategy of solving homelessness in San Diego. Do safe parking programs offer a helpful and effective intervention for helping unhoused people to get safely rehoused and back on their feet? Within this broader query, we have examined sub-questions such as:
● What percentage of SPP clients exit “successfully” to permanent and temporary housing? ● What percentage return to the parking lots?
● Are there particular patterns in the data (e.g., demographic or experiential), that are associated with positive or negative exits?
● Are there other ways that SPPs might benefit people, even those clients who do not have a quick or easy transition to permanent, stable housing?

Another aim of the research has been to understand who the individuals and families are who are enrolled in the safe parking program. What are their stories and what can they tell us about risk factors for falling into homelessness? Further, what can we learn from them about the day-to-day experiences of living unhoused in San Diego, as well as what helps and what hinders people in becoming stably rehoused? In speaking with clients via interviews, and to frontline staff and clients in listening sessions, we delved into what those who are right up close and personal with services, supports, and conditions perceive to be most helpful, and what could be added or changed. In the midst of this research, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Thus, our data spans the time before and after the shelter-in-place orders in California. This report will share the impacts of the ongoing pandemic on SPP clients.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 4 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 5 Key Findings
Client Demographics
Much of what we learned about clients using the JFS Safe Parking Program runs contrary to common negative stereotypes about people experiencing homelessness. The individuals we spoke with represent a tremendously diverse background with respect to education, work and life history, as well as age, race/ethnicity, family status, and individual challenges. ● Most households are made up of adults only, but 20% of participants are members of families with children.
● SPP clients represent a diversity of racial and ethnic backgrounds and are distributed as follows: White (47.6%), Hispanic (19.6%), Black (16.2%), Multiracial (6.4%), Asian (3.1%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (1.7%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1.5%).

Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander San Diegans are represented in the SPP at disproportionately higher rates compared to their percentages in the general population, a pattern seen in general homelessness population statistics in San Diego
2 and across the country.3
● SPP clients range in age from youth to elders with nearly half (44.7%) over the age of 50,

27.6% are 60 or older, and 14.1% of the clients are under the age of 20. ● For the majority of participants (69.6%), the current crisis is their first experience of homelessness over the prior three years. A large number (43.7%) report being unhoused for one month, while about a quarter of the participants (26.6%) experienced longer term (12+ months of) homelessness over the prior three years. ● Contrary to common stereotypes, only a relatively small percentage of SPP clients have a mental health issue (15.3% compared to 26% in the general population 4) or substance
use disorder (1.7% vs roughly 8% in the general population5). More than a quarter have a physical disability (slightly higher than 20% in the general population), and 15.1% report having a chronic health issue (significantly lower than the general population 6).

Household Exits
● Among households that enrolled between February 1, 2019 and November 30, 2020,

18.4% had “positive exits” (meaning they exited to permanent or temporary housing)

2 Statement on Racial Inequality and Action, San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness. 3 Homelessness and Racial Disparities, National Alliance to End Homelessness, October 2020. 4 According to the National Institute of Mental Health Disorders, an estimated 26% of Americans ages 18 and older -- about 1 in 4 adults -- suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. 5 According to the National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics. 6 According to estimates from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), more than half (51.8%) of adults had at least 1 of 10 selected diagnosed chronic conditions (arthritis, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, current asthma, diabetes, hepatitis, hypertension, stroke, and weak or failing kidneys), and 27.2% of US adults had multiple chronic conditions (CDC Research Brief, 2020).

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 5 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 6 through March 31, 2021. Because there was no exit data for 59.6% of the households who left, the 18.4% positive exit rate is almost certainly an underestimate. ● The factors most strongly associated with positive exits were age (younger heads of household exit sooner and achieve more permanent exits) and total monthly income (heads of household with higher incomes achieve more permanent and temporary exits).

Returns to Safe Parking Program
● Of the 874 households who exited between February 1, 2019 and November 30, 2020, 20% returned to the program once, 4.3% returned twice, and 1.1% returned three or more times through March 31, 2021. The strongest factors associated with returning to the SPP were age of the head of household (being older increasing the likelihood) and having been chronically homeless.

Possible Effects of the COVID Pandemic
● The COVID pandemic took a toll on staff and clients alike, demanding a great deal of additional energy and support on the part of staff, eliminating critical practical and social outlets (gyms, parks, cafes, libraries, etc.) for clients, and adding stress and anxiety to everyone’s day.
● The pandemic made it more difficult for some populations to exit to permanent housing, generally older heads of household, those with physical disabilities, and clients with histories of chronic homelessness. It similarly negated advantages that some populations had previously demonstrated in the pre-COVID period in exiting to permanent housing. For example, households with Asian, Black and Hispanic heads had more permanent exits than those with White heads of household in the pre-COVID period, however, this trend only continued with Asian heads of household during the COVID period.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 6 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 7 Recommendations Based on Findings
Our recommendations span six categories ranging from those actions which might have a direct positive impact on SPP clients, to those which support staff, to those aimed at addressing the broader challenge of mass homelessness in our region, state, and country. More detail is provided in the body of this report.

Enhancing direct and indirect client supports
● Support the capacity of clients to increase their income (both employment-based, and benefits-based)
● Identify new strategies to support older heads of household, and learn from those older adults who do achieve positive exit outcomes
● Institute more robust programmatic interventions and follow-up protocols for households that exit to less-stable destinations
● Extend the operational hours at all lots, and provide 24-hour access for at least one lot ● Enhance basic services and amenities at all lots
● Build relationships and partnerships with other service providers, educational institutions, and civic, healthcare, advocacy, and community organizations ● Reach out to local grocery stores, restaurants, and businesses to solicit donations of gift cards, food, or supplies to support clients, both on the lot and as they transition back to housing
● Provide “quality of life” vouchers
● Assure that all aspects of the program are developed with a racial equity and trauma- sensitive lens

Increasing staff training and support
● Provide additional and ongoing training for frontline staff regarding accessing supports for clients
● Arrange opportunities for interaction, information sharing, and mutual support between and among frontline staff
● Convene client-facing staff to create a “checklist” of policies, practices, and procedures to be followed daily, weekly and monthly

Fostering community, peace, wellness, and resource-sharing on the lots ● Foster greater connection and mutual support among clients ● Provide an orientation flyer to clients as they enter the lot ● Expand sources and sites of information and resource-sharing ● Work with clients to identify jobs/roles on the lots to improve quality of life ● Encourage and facilitate links between clients and community members Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 7 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 8 Further Inquiry: collecting data to better understand and address program and client challenges
● Investigate and resolve the lackluster outcomes of male-headed families ● Investigate the factors associated with more, and more rapid, positive exits ● Create avenues through which clients can air concerns, provide feedback, and offer suggestions for improving the lots, including those they can institute themselves ● Follow up with clients once they have left the lot and collect data on what helps and what hinders individuals and families in finding and maintaining stable housing

Policy Advocacy
● Advocate for greater access to both permanent supportive housing and subsidized vouchers
● Advocate for HUD to include SPPs in their eligibility criteria for Continuum of Care funding and Emergency Shelter Grants
● Advocate for “long-stayers” and chronically unhoused clients to be prioritized for Project Homekey
● Advocate for more robust data collection and program evaluation of homelessness interventions

Spearheading further inquiry and shared learning regarding the Safe Parking Program model ● JFS should play a leading role in facilitating a community of practice through which to share challenges, insights, and best practices of SPPs
● To the extent possible, continue to collect data, monitor outcomes, listen to clients and staff, and learn from such inquiry and critical programmatic appraisal ● Engage in public education efforts about the SPP and how it fits into a broader set of solution strategies to solve homelessness in San Diego

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 8 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 9 Scope of the Study

This report is a culmination of knowledge gleaned from two years of a collaborative, mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) study evaluating the Jewish Family Service of San Diego Safe Parking Program. It has benefitted from the input and insights of faculty and student researchers, administrative leads and direct line staff from JFS, and more than 150 unhoused San Diegans using JFS’ SPP lots. The study is ongoing and this report contains our findings to date. Beyond what it can tell us about the effectiveness and usefulness of the SPP model as one element of a broader solutions strategy in our region, it offers a rich body of data that can help us all understand more about the “who, what, where, how and why” of vehicle-based homelessness in San Diego.

We hope that it will help inform thinking, planning, and funding regarding homelessness across our region, as well as offer a direct counter to the negative stereotypes and misconceptions that are rife across our county and country about the individuals and families who are in the grip of a homelessness crisis. Research that can illuminate the root causes of this social and health emergency, as well as the personal tragedies that precipitate individual experiences of homelessness, can help us move away from a narrative of individual blame and shame to one of historical, structural, and cultural root causes. It can help us to clarify the aims of our collective efforts, understand what different interventions can and cannot do, and think about how we all (researchers, policymakers, service providers, civic leaders, funders, advocates, and people experiencing homelessness) can work together to end homelessness in our region.

Throughout our research and continuing still, we have felt the urgency of this issue for people who are living unhoused. We have heard their frustration and despair, witnessed their resilience and grace, and learned from them regarding the day-to-day challenges of houselessness, and what interventions might help. The individuals we have spoken with on the lots over the past two years are the experts, having perspectives from lived experience that cannot be gained from reading articles or reports. We want to highlight and honor their contributions, and thank them again and again for sharing their stories and insights in hopes of easing the way for other San Diegans who face a similar life crisis.

Year 2 of the JFS Safe Parking Program evaluation (which covered activities between October 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021) built upon the research findings and accomplishments of Year 1. The aim was to continue to collect quantitative and qualitative data on SPP clients and staff to deepen our understanding of SPP client demographics and trajectories, impacts of services and supports, and challenges and opportunities with the SPP, along with a specific focus on the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the program. We continued to integrate a pedagogical component to the research and for a second year taught an undergraduate course focused on homelessness in San Diego. The 18 Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 9 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 10 students who completed the course contributed to the data collection and analysis of the SPP, and brought their own humanity to conversations with SPP clients, just as 22 students did in Year 1.

In Year 2 we continued to analyze Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data on the JFS SPP. We also continued to conduct oral history interviews with SPP clients at the three sites included in Year 1 (Aero, Balboa, and Mission Valley) in addition to the new Encinitas lot. New to the research this year was the incorporation of four listening sessions with frontline SPP staff at all four parking lots. We also added listening sessions with SPP clients at all four parking lots. In total, we conducted 57 additional oral history interviews, engaged 55 SPP clients across six different listening sessions, and engaged 15 SPP staff across four listening sessions.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 10 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 11 Methodology

1. Quantitative Data Analysis Research Methodology
At JFS, basic data is collected on all SPP clients upon entry to their designated parking lot. For clients who stay longer than one night, more comprehensive data are collected within two to three days. Data collected is entered into the County of San Diego’s HMIS system, JFS’s ETOi system, or both.
7 For this research project, we primarily analyzed demographic and outcome data for clients: 1) who enrolled at one or more of the three longest running JFS safe parking lots (i.e., Aero, Balboa, and Mission Valley) between February 1, 2019 and March 31, 2021, and 2) whose information had been entered into HMIS (not all clients who were entered into the ETOi system as having stayed at one of the lots were entered into HMIS, and vice versa). JFS did serve clients who enrolled prior to February 1, 2019. However, it was on February 1, 2019 that JFS took full control of the program, and because we do not have data on all clients who enrolled prior to February 1, 2019, those clients in the HMIS system who enrolled prior to that date represent a biased sample of clients that does not adequately represent the distribution of demographic traits and outcomes of the full SPP population.

Finally, we excluded clients from the North County lot because the lot has not been running long enough to adequately evaluate its performance, especially since it has run almost entirely during the COVID pandemic. A total of 1,585 SPP clients in the HMIS database enrolled at the Balboa, Aero, or Mission Valley lots through March 31, 2021. These clients comprised 1,170 households. Excluding households that enrolled prior to February 1, 2019 reduces the total down to 1,096 households. These households form the basis of much of the demographic and exit outcome analysis contained in this report.

In calculating outcome rates, we used “all SPP households” as the denominator, rather than all SPP households who had exited the program. This is important because having a larger denominator necessarily results in a smaller percentage (or rate) of “positive exits” for our results. Further, the kind of exits that are considered “positive” varies; when JFS and other service providers report data to the Regional Task Force for Homelessness, they follow U.S.

7The HMIS system is the countywide repository for data collection on homelessness projects and programs funded by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD mandates this data collection. The Regional Task Force on Homelessness (RTFH) manages the system for San Diego County. ETOi is the internal data collection software and reporting system used by JFS. HMIS and ETOi collect similar data but there are some variations. Our research team decided to use the HMIS data on JFS SPP clients in order to be able to compare these clients to the County’s larger population of homeless individuals served by HUD-funded programs.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 11 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 12 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, which consider exit to a homeless shelter to be a positive exit. We did not consider “exit to shelter” a positive exit in our calculations. This has the effect of reducing the rate of positive exits yet further. This context is important because it puts the rate, which could be calculated as higher using different assumptions, in perspective.

2. Qualitative Data Analysis Research Methodology
Rich qualitative data was collected on SPP clients and frontline staff. Undergraduate students from UC San Diego were trained in best practices in oral history interviewing. In Year 2, 18 students conducted 57 oral history interviews with SPP clients at all four JFS SPP lots. These built on 71 oral history interviews conducted by 22 students in Year 1.8 The aim of the interviews was to better understand the humanscape and unique personal trajectories of people experiencing unstable housing. Additional SPP client data and insights were collected through a series of listening sessions. The research team conducted listening sessions with SPP clients at all four JFS SPP lots. A total of 55 SPP clients participated across six sessions. The purpose of the listening sessions was to better understand clients’ experiences at SPP lots and learn about their thoughts and experiences pertaining to homelessness.

Between November 9th and December 7th, 2020, the research team conducted listening sessions with staff at each of the four JFS SPP lots with the aim of tapping the wisdom and insights of frontline staff. We queried them about staff rewards, needs and concerns, barriers clients face in becoming permanently rehoused, changes they’ve seen over the past year of the COVID pandemic, and their perceptions of program effectiveness. Fifteen staff members participated in the conversations, sharing their observations, suggestions, and rich body of knowledge about clients, what helps, and what hinders people in becoming stably rehoused. 9 Over two weeks in September 2021, the research team returned to each of the four SPP lots to share findings, hear from clients still on the lots about anything we might have missed, and listen to feedback from newer clients regarding both the SPP program supports and their general thoughts about vehicle-based homelessness. These sessions took place roughly six months after the last of the spring listening sessions of Year 2. Of the 60-70 people in attendance across the four lots, roughly one third of the faces were familiar to us. The insights clients shared, including additional recommendations, have been integrated into this summary report.

8 Please refer to our Year 1 Research Summary for a full analysis of findings from our first year. 9 See report, JFS Frontline Staff Listening Sessions: Synthesis of Findings for a detailed summary.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 12 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 13 The Broader Context of Safe Parking Programs in the U.S.

One of the research aims of the JFS SPP evaluation was to determine the extent to which the JFS SPP could serve as a model for other SPPs in the U.S. Our research team, in collaboration with a research team based out of Los Angeles,10 simultaneously catalogued and summarized the landscape of SPPs across the U.S. The following was identified:
● Safe Parking Programs are relatively new with the first one established in Santa Barbara in 2004.
● 43 communities in the U.S. have a Safe Parking Program and the overwhelming majority (93%) are on the West Coast.
● Program models vary considerably. The Center for Homeless Inquiries differentiates between the umbrella model and independent operators. Umbrella programs typically contain several lots managed by one organization that likely receives public funding.

Some type of case management is typically provided. The number of total parking spaces ranges from 21 - 101. In contrast, independent operators manage a single lot and offer spaces for 6- 60 vehicles. Case management typically is not provided and operating budgets are substantially smaller than those for umbrella programs. ● Availability of services varies significantly. All SPPs identified provide access to toilets and approximately 60% provide one or more of the following: showers, meals, wi-fi, and/or electronic charging stations. Close to 50% of SPPs provide financial support for vehicle repairs, auto insurance, and registration. Approximately 50% of SPPs provide housing placement assistance. Less common is financial support for housing related expenses such as moving and security deposits. Some programs provide services such as childcare and counseling.
● Lot hours also vary. More than 50% of the identified SPPs are open 24 hours a day whereas other programs require clients to leave by a specific time in the morning and then reopen in the evening.
● Advertising and recruitment for SPPs is typically done utilizing multiple forms of outreach including 2-1-1 centers, referrals, word of mouth, and law enforcement. ● The target population for SPPs varies. Close to 50% of the SPPs prioritize specific demographic groups such as families and veterans. Some umbrella SPPs target certain lots for specific subsets of the population. Some SPPs will only accept local residents. ● Safety and security protocols may include checking sex offender registries and/or conducting criminal background searches. SPPs typically provide new clients with information about their rules and regulations.

10 Center for Homeless Inquiries (2021). Safe Parking: Insights from a Review of National Programs. Available at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e40681539b77957555f10e0/t/609ef366f1f5035bc056db19/1621029735677/Safe+Par king+Briefer+Final.pdf.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 13 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 14 ● SPP challenges include inflexible hours of operations, requirements for proof of identity (driver’s license), funding (SPPs are not eligible for HUD Continuum of Care funding or Emergency Shelter Grants), community resistance, and challenges with rehousing clients.
● Program outcomes vary considerably and agreed upon benchmarks for success have yet to be determined. The Center for Homeless Inquiries found that most SPPs track clients’ exits into temporary or permanent housing and the percentage of positive exits ranges from 13% to 60% based on self-report. Furthermore, the Center for Homeless Inquiries was unable to identify patterns based on program features such as type of lot, hours of operation, and/or types of services provided.
● Many SPPs prioritize building a sense of community among their clients and creating an environment that contributes to clients’ sense of safety.

Based on the review of the national landscape of SPPs, it is evident that Jewish Family Service of San Diego has one of the largest and most comprehensive SPPs in the U.S. As such, JFS is in a position to serve as a leader in this environment. It should take the initiative to share its experiences (successes as well as challenges) with policymakers, elected officials, and other SPP providers. With the recent expiration of the (second) eviction moratorium in October 2021, there is a high likelihood that demand for SPPs will surge. JFS is in a position to share best practices.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 14 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 15 Quantitative Findings
JFS SPP Client Demographics (February 1, 2019 - March 31, 2021) ● The vast majority of SPP households (91.7%) do not have children. However, 20% of all (individual) clients are members of households with children. ● SPP clients represent a diversity of racial and ethnic backgrounds and are distributed as follows:

White (47.6%), Hispanic (19.6%), Black (16.2%), Multiracial (6.4%), Asian (3.1%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (1.7%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1.5%). Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander San Diegans are represented in the SPP at disproportionately higher rates compared to their percentages in the general population, a pattern seen in general homelessness population statistics in San Diego11 and across the country.12
● Compared to the racial and ethnic composition of the County of San Diego overall, a higher proportion of SPP clients are Black, Mixed Race, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander with proportionately fewer Asians and Hispanics enrolled in the program.
● SPP clients range in age from youth to elders with nearly half (44.7%) being over the age of 50, over a quarter (27.6%) 50 and over, and 14.1% under the age of 20. ● SPP heads of household have had a range of experiences with homelessness: 26.6% had been homeless for 12 or more months in the three years prior to enrollment, whereas 43.7% had only been homeless for one month. For a majority, their current experience of homelessness at the time of enrollment was the only time they had been homeless in the prior three years (69.6%), whereas 11.2% had been homeless three times or more. Additionally, 16% of heads of household were determined to be “chronically homeless.” 13 ● SPP heads of household live with a variety of health concerns: 26.7% have a physical disability,

15.3% have a mental health issue, and 15.1% have a chronic health issue. Compared to the broader population of unhoused people in the U.S., these percentages are lower. For example, nearly 43% of people in the U.S. living in shelters have a disability, and the percentage of unhoused people nationwide with “any mental illness” is estimated to be approximately 45%.

11 Statement on Racial Inequality and Action, San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness. 12 Homelessness and Racial Disparities, National Alliance to End Homelessness, October 2020. 13 An individual is defined by HUD as “Chronically Homeless” if they have a disability and have lived in a shelter, safe haven, or place not meant for human habitation for 12 continuous months or for four separate occasions in the last three years (must total 12 months). HUD Exchange (2015) Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH): Defining Chronically Homeless Final Rule.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 15 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 16 Household Exits from the JFS Safe Parking Program
Since it can take time for a household to exit after they have enrolled in the SPP, we analyzed exit data for those households who enrolled through November 30, 2020, which gives households at least four months (and up to 26 months, depending on when they enrolled during this period) to exit. Among households that enrolled between February 1, 2019 and November 30, 2020 and then exited by March 31, 2021, we found the following:
● 13.7% exited to permanent housing
● 4.7% exited to temporary housing situations
● 4.7% of households had not exited the program
● 6.5% exited into unhoused situations
● 8.7% exited to the emergency shelter system
● The destinations of 59.6% of households were not known

The strongest factor in disparate exits to permanent housing is age of head of household, while the second strongest factor is total monthly income. However, even taken together, these two “explanatory factors” still account only minimally for disparate outcomes across clients. Thus, more data is needed to understand what factors foster (and which hinder) successful client outcomes. This will be the aim of our research in Year 3.

It is important to note that programs for the unhoused generally have a moderately high number of households whose exit destinations are unknown, which complicates the analysis. For example, according to data from the Regional Task Force on Homelessness, during the second quarter of 2020 (April 1 - June 30), 15.18% of all exits from emergency shelters, 15.97% of all exits from permanent supportive housing programs, and 14.20% of all exits from transitional housing programs across San Diego were to unknown destinations.
14 Thus, it is a challenge everywhere. However, the rate is considerably higher for SPP clients for reasons that are not immediately clear. One hypothesis is that it may have something to do with the SPP clients’ greater mobility due to automobile ownership. In Year 1, the percentage of unknown exits was exceptionally high (approaching 70%). Once we shared this information with JFS, they made a concerted effort to improve data collection in this area. As a result of these efforts, among households that enrolled during the fourth quarter of 2020, the percentage of unknown exits dropped to 28.6%. Even with this improvement, however, the problem of unknown exits hampers our ability to assess true outcomes for exiting clients.

14 Regional Task Force on Homelessness - Dashboard (Entries and Exits, Q2, 2020).

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 16 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 17 Additional analysis of data on household exits from the JFS SPP revealed the following:

Head of household income is associated with exit outcomes ● Total monthly income (combining both earned, employment-based, and benefits-based income) predicts increased permanent or temporary exits relative to homeless or emergency shelter exits. The mean total income of those who exit to permanent destinations is $1,477 and to temporary destinations is $1,3646, whereas the mean total income of those who exit to homeless destinations is $1,243 and to emergency shelters is $1,166. In other words, even increments on the scale of only $100/month are associated with more positive outcomes.
● Monthly earned income predicts increased permanent exits relative to temporary, homeless, and emergency shelter exits. The mean earned income of those who exit to permanent destinations is $661, whereas the mean earned income of those who exit to temporary destinations is $452, to homeless destinations is $508, and to emergency shelters is $417.

Head of household age is associated with exit outcomes
● Increased age for a head of household predicts decreased permanent exits and increased temporary exits, particularly for households with heads who are more than 69 years old.

Households exit to permanent destinations at rates of 16.1% when heads are under 30 years, 13.8% when heads are 30-69 years, and 7.8% when heads are over 69 years.

Households exit to temporary destinations with rates of 0.8% when heads are under 30 years, 4.8% when heads are 30-69 years, and 11.8% when heads are over 69 years. ● Increased age also predicts increased homeless and emergency shelter exits and no exits.

Households with heads over 59 years old exit to homeless situations at a rate of 9.5% compared to 5.3% for other households. For emergency shelter exits, we see elevated rates extend to households with heads over 49 years (11.7%) relative to other households (4.9%).

Finally, looking at households that do not exit, we found rates of 2.5% when heads are under 30 years, 3.6% when heads are 30-59 years, and 8.0% when heads are over 59 years. ● The association with decreased permanent exits relative to negative and no exits is partially but not wholly driven by increased rates of physical disability and lower monthly income.

Head of household gender and household type are associated with exit outcomes (though it is not statistically significant due to low household numbers) ● Female-headed families achieve the strongest positive results, with a 20% permanent exit rate and a rate of 10.9% to homeless, emergency shelter, or no exits. Two-parent, female- headed families have a particularly strong permanent exit rate of 28.6%. Male-headed families, on the other hand, only exit to permanent destinations 13.6% of the time and have homeless, emergency shelter, or no exits 27.3% of the time. These male-headed families experience the highest level of temporary exits (9.1%) and emergency shelter exits (22.7%).

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 17 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 18 ● Single females and female-headed households also perform better than single males and male-headed households (but not as well as female-headed households), exiting to permanent destinations 17.4% of the time and to homeless, emergency shelter, or no exits

19.8% of the time compared to 10.7% permanent exits and 20.9% homeless, emergency shelter, or no exits for single males and male-headed couples. These latter households have the highest no exit rates (6.6%), whereas all families exited during this time frame.

Household experience with homelessness is associated with exit outcomes ● Higher amounts of time homeless during the three years prior to enrollment predicts fewer permanent exits and more no exits. Households who had been homeless for six or more months exited to permanent destinations 9.2% of the time and did not exit 7.9% of the time, whereas households who had been homeless for one to five months exited to permanent destinations 17.5% of the time and did not exit 3.2% of the time. ● These associations are partially but not wholly driven by lower monthly income.

Head of household race and ethnicity are associated with exit outcomes ● Households with Asian, Black and Hispanic heads were more likely than those with White heads of household to exit to permanent destinations relative to their negative and no exits. o Households with Asian heads had the highest rate of permanent exits at 24.1% while 20.7% exited to homelessness or emergency shelters, or did not exit; o Black heads of household had permanent exits at a rate of 16.4%, while only 11.9% exited to homelessness or emergency shelters, or did not exit; o Hispanic heads of household had permanent exits at a rate of 15%, while only 16.2% exited to homelessness or emergency shelters, or did not exit; o White heads of household had permanent exits at a rate of 12.3%, while 22.9% exited to homelessness or emergency shelters, or did not exit. ● These associations are largely driven by differential ages (older for White heads) and rates of physical disability (higher for White heads) among these populations. For households with Black and Hispanic heads, higher levels of monthly income also contribute to their improved exit outcomes.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 18 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 19 Length of Stay in the JFS Safe Parking Program
Households that remain the longest in the program generally fall into two categories: those that have not exited (369.7 days on average) and those that exit to emergency shelters (169.8 days on average). Households that ultimately exit to permanent destinations remain in the program longer (95 days on average) than households that exit to unknown destinations (64.8 days on average) or back into homeless destinations (shelters or the streets, 81.2 days on average) but less than those that exit to temporary destinations (111.8 days on average). At every step along the age spectrum, older heads of household take longer to exit than younger heads of household, ranging from an average of 40.6 days for those under 30 years old to an average of 137.3 days for those over 69 years old. Single adults who exit also remain in the program longer (79.6 days on average) than adults with children who exit (47 days on average).

Additional analysis of JFS SPP longstayers, the 10% (117 households) that have stayed in the program the longest, revealed the following when compared to all households in the program:
● Top 10% of longstayers were in the program more than 300 days (whether they had exited or still remained in the program through March 31, 2021). ● Top 10% of longstayers are older: 84.6% are 50 years and over, whereas 56.2% are 50 years and over among all households; clients who are 70 years and over have extended stays on the lots at more than double the average rate for all heads of household (11.1% of 70+ years old clients vs 4.9% of all households). ● Top 10% of longstayers have been homeless for longer: 31.4% of the longstayer households had been homeless more than 12 months in the three years prior to enrollment, compared to 20.8% of all households.
● Top 10% of longstayers have less income: their average is $1,145, whereas the average among all households is $1,354.
● Top 10% of longstayers have more single-person households: 89.7% are individuals, compared to 84.1% among all households.
● Top 10% of longstayers are more likely to be male: 64.1% are male, compared to

56.9% among all households.
● Top 10% of longstayers are more likely to be single males that are 50 years and over: 47.9% compared to 29.8% among all households.
● Top 10% of longstayers are more likely to be individual males who are 50 years and over and who were also homeless more than 12 months in the three years prior to enrollment: 13.7% compared to 7% among all households.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 19 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 20 Household Returns for the JFS Safe Parking Program
Of the 874 households who exited between February 1, 2019 and November 30, 2020, 175 returned to the program once (20%), 38 returned twice (4.3%), 8 returned three times (0.9%), and 2 returned four times (0.2%) through March 31, 2021. The strongest factors in these outcomes are having been chronically homeless and age of the head of household, though even taken together these two factors do not go very far in explaining who returns to the program after exiting. More research is needed to understand the factors that contribute to disparate rates of return to SPP lots.

Additional analysis of data on household exits from the JFS SPP revealed the following:

Head of household returns to SPP vary by exit types
● Rates of return depend on the type of exit. Whereas heads who exited to unsubsidized rentals had 12.1% rates of return, those who exited to subsidized rentals had much lower return rates of 5.9%. Those who exited to permanent housing with family had return rates of 13.2%; those who exited to homeless situations had rates more than three times greater (46.6%), and those who exited to permanent housing with friends also had high return rates (44.4%). These were even higher than exits to emergency shelters (rates of 25.6%), and temporary housing with friends or family (rates of 23.1%).

Head of household chronic homelessness is associated with higher rates of return to SPP lots ● Chronic homelessness predicts increased rates of first (and second) return: heads of household who have experienced chronic homelessness return at a rate of 31.3% while heads of household who have not experienced chronic homelessness return at a rate of

17.9%.

Head of household age is associated with rates of return to SPP lots ● Older age predicts increased rates of first (and second) return: heads of household over 69 years return at a rate of 30% while heads of household under age 30 return at a rate of 11.4%.

Household type is associated with rates of return to lots ● Couples and families return to the lots at much lower rates: single-adult households have higher rates of first (and second) return, with a rate of 21.6% for single adults and

19.2% for single-parent families, whereas couples have a 10.9% rate and two-parent families have a 3.7% rate.

Head of household income is associated with rates of return ● Higher total monthly income predicts decreased rates of return: the mean total income for those who do not return to the lots is $1,367, higher than those who do return to the SPP lots ($1,206).

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 20 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 21 Head of household race is associated with rates of return to SPP lots ● Households with Black heads were less likely and households with Native American/Alaskan heads were more likely than those with White heads to return once to the lots. Households with Black heads returned 13.4% of the time, households with Native American/Alaskan heads returned 46.2% of the time, whereas households with White heads returned 21.1% of the time.
● When looking at the comparative rates of return between households with Black and White heads, age of the head of household partially drives their differences. Further research would be worthwhile to tease out other contributing factors, both to the greater success of Black heads of households in permanent exits and fewer returns, and to the disproportionately higher rates of houselessness for Black heads of household in the first place.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 21 1/24/2022 3:50:09 PM 22 The Possible Effects of the COVID Pandemic
To get a sense of how the COVID pandemic may have affected the results of the SPP, we compared similar time periods before (March 19, 2019 through March 31, 2020) and during the pandemic (March 19, 2020 through March 31, 2021). We started on March 19 in each time period because that is when the California lockdown was announced. While we tracked exits through March 31 of each time period, we only looked at households enrolled through November 30 of the given year in order to allow at least four months for households to exit. We found that the pandemic made it more difficult for some populations to exit to permanent housing and that it similarly negated advantages that some populations demonstrated in the pre-COVID period in exiting to permanent housing.

Differences between the pre-COVID and COVID time periods:
● Association linking heads of household physical disability to fewer permanent exits was stronger in the COVID period.
15 ● Association linking chronic homelessness (and number of months homeless in the prior three years) to fewer permanent exits was only found in the COVID period. ● The effects described in the two points above are largely behind two additional associations that were found in the COVID period:
o an association linking older heads of household to fewer permanent exits that was stronger in the COVID period
16 o an association linking the head of household’s earned income to more permanent exits that was only found in the COVID period
● Association linking veteran heads of household to more permanent exits was only found in the pre-COVID period.
● Association linking female heads of household to more permanent exits was only found in the COVID period.
● Whereas households with Asian, Black and Hispanic heads had more permanent exits than those with White heads in the pre-COVID period, only households with Asian heads of household did so during the COVID period.

15 It was not statistically significant for the pre-COVID period though it pointed in the same direction. 16 It was not statistically significant for the pre-COVID period though it pointed in the same direction.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 22 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 23 Qualitative Findings
Proximate and Upstream Contributors to Homelessness
Analysis of the HMIS data provided critical baseline statistics. We supplemented this data with SPP client and staff interviews and listening sessions in order to better understand the individual stories behind them. The reasons for falling into homelessness are as varied as the individuals who shared them; we have been privy to countless stories of crisis and loss, many poignant, others gut-wrenching. Narrative diversity notwithstanding, the immediate causes of homelessness do follow particular patterns. The most frequent proximate causes of homelessness/houselessness include:
● Loss of a job
● Medical crisis
● Loss of a partner or spouse to death or divorce
● Domestic violence
● Illness and death of a parent, child, or other significant person in someone’s life ● Loss of a naturally-occurring affordable housing (NOAH) unit, e.g., due to death of the owner and selling of the property by heirs

Note that while the vast majority of unhoused people in San Diego (and in the SPP) are from San Diego, for that subset who come from other cities, the story is typically one of shattered expectations, e.g., a promised job that did not materialize, a relationship that did not work out, etc.

The throughline is that in every case, an individual or family sustains some kind of significant blow(s) and they lack a sufficient buffer (of wealth, or social/familial support, or both) to cushion that impact. The common baseline, just as it is the case for the majority of people across the country who become unhoused, is that at the time of their housing crisis, 1) they are experiencing deep economic insecurity, and 2) the familial or community supports they may have are insufficient to keep them housed. It must be said that, with respect to support from individuals’ immediate circle of family and friends, the inability to offer funds or housing is not because family members or friends do not want to lend assistance. In some cases, friends and family want to help, and might even be able to help, but at significant personal cost because their own resources are severely limited as well. Many SPP clients, perceiving this and not wanting to burden family and friends, choose not to share their circumstances.

It is critical to note just how widespread economic precarity is across San Diego, as well as across our state and nation. In one oft-cited survey,
17 69% of Americans reported that they did not have $1000 in personal savings to cover an unexpected expense; 45% could not even come up with $400. Millions of Americans are one medical crisis, paycheck, or personal shock away from losing their housing. The reason that our students come to the conclusion again and again that SPP clients are “just like us” and

17Vultaggio, Maria. Most Americans Lack Savings. Statista. December 18, 2019.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 23 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 24 that becoming unhoused “can happen to anybody” is that the clients really are very much like them and people they know: family members, neighbors, friends. Contrary to the presumptions students often carry into their interviews, they find that many of the clients have jobs or recent work histories. Some have college degrees; others have been entrepreneurs. All have relationships, people, and/or pets that make their lives meaningful. Before they became derailed, they were on life trajectories that are familiar to the students. They lived in houses or apartments. Many worked for decades before being laid off.

They are ordinary - no less kind or capable or accomplished compared to other people we know.

One important contributing factor to homelessness that we see, both “upstream” and “downstream,” is trauma. A disproportionately high proportion of clients, in both Year 1 and 2 of our oral history interviews, revealed childhood backgrounds and life trajectories populated with experiences of abuse, neglect, and/or significant privation. The research on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) is clear:
higher numbers of ACEs put individuals at increasingly higher risk of negative health and social outcomes as adults, including homelessness, addiction, depression, and physical health problems. 18 Having a
trauma-informed and sensitive staff and being prepared to connect clients with relevant counseling and support resources are important ways to attend to these clients’ needs.

Barriers to Becoming Stably Rehoused
We explored the question, “What are the barriers to becoming stably rehoused?” with both SPP clients and direct line staff as each group offers critical perspectives on the challenges people are facing. From the clients’ vantage point, structural barriers are the most formidable. While many recognized that individual challenges such as disabling physical and mental health conditions, as well as addiction, were at play for some people, the answers that came up again and again were “unaffordable rent,” “impossible to find housing I can afford,” and “I don’t earn enough money to cover rent in San Diego.” In California, 21% of renter households (more than 1.2 million households) are extremely low income (ELI), earning $27,330 or less.
19 We have a severe shortage of housing that is affordable to this group: across the state, we lack almost one million homes that are affordable to extremely low income (ELI) households.
20 In 2019 (pre-COVID), according to the California Poverty Measure (CPM), 16.4% of Californians (6.3 million) lacked enough resources to meet basic needs. In San Diego, that percentage was even higher: 17.8% of our neighbors live at or below the Federal Poverty Line.

For people on the lots, monthly income, whether earned or fixed, is simply inadequate to cover market rent. The average income for SPP households is barely over the Federal Poverty Line for individuals, and in many cases, this income has to serve for two or more people making up a household. The average rent for an apartment in San Diego is $2,344,21 roughly $1000 higher than the average household income for SPP clients. Something has to change for that individual or household to regain stable

18Stressful and traumatic events during childhood have a strong relationship to both negative health outcomes and lifetime homelessness. Hernandez, L. and Wiewel, B. (2020) Trauma and Resiliency Informed Care and Homelessness. Sol Price Center for Social Innovation; Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), CDC Vital Signs, November 2019. 19National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Housing Needs By State: California” (accessed November 8, 2021). 20Ibid.
21Rentcafe.com Rental Market Trends for San Diego (accessed August 31, 2021).

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 24 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 25 housing: either an increase in income (a higher paying job, more work hours, better social safety net supports), a decrease in cost of housing, or both. The challenge is even greater for many older adults (who make up a significant proportion of SPP clients), particularly those with disabling conditions, who live on a severely limited and fixed income.

Nationwide, only one out of four individuals who qualifies for subsidized housing receives it.22 In California, the situation is even worse. SPP clients spoke of being on the waiting list for a Section 8 voucher anywhere from 10-15 years. SPP staff identify many of the same barriers that clients do, as they are on the front lines of helping households figure out their budgets and find apartments they can afford. Staff are also cognizant of the many stresses (economic, physical, psychological, social) that clients face and the ways these factors complicate their lives and make regaining economic and housing stability challenging. These range from fall-out from economic shocks (inability to pay medical bills, losing jobs, partners, parents, and/or children), to reverberations of trauma, abuse and other childhood adverse experiences earlier in life. Such experiences can cause people to feel even more overwhelmed and less able to deal with the practical demands of both surviving (figuring out where to rest, where to charge phones, where to eat, how to spend the day or keep kids entertained, how to hide “being homeless” from others) and building a life again (editing and sending out resumes and job applications, applying for SNAP and other possible benefits, apartment hunting, doctors and other appointments for self and family, making sure kids do their homework assignments, etc.).

For most clients, living out of their vehicles is the only reasonable option for the moment. The alternatives: shelter or rough sleeping on the streets are considered to be even less desirable. Shelters have numerous rules and stipulations. To many, they feel overcrowded and unsafe. People often prefer the freedom of having the private space their vehicle offers, no matter how cramped and uncomfortable it may be. People with pets feel they have no other option, since pets cannot be brought into shelters.

Families or couples wanting to remain together have vanishingly few shelter options available, so they choose to remain together in their vehicles.

Direct line staff do report that some clients are unrealistic about where they are willing to live. People tend to want to live in areas they know and have lived before, but when they lose their housing (often naturally occurring affordable housing, or NOAHs), as is the case with many of the older clients, or their circumstances change significantly (job loss, medical bankruptcy, loss of partner and dual earner), they can no longer afford to live where they want to live. This is a painful shift for clients and it can take time to adjust to the new reality.

22Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “3 in 4 Low-Income Renters Needing Rental Assistance Do Not Receive It” (last updated July, 2021).

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 25 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 26 Impacts of the JFS Safe Parking Program on Clients
It is difficult to capture all that is happening within the Safe Parking Program. It is a robust program, providing the most comprehensive array of supports we’ve seen at any safe parking lot. As discussed below, our research identified formal and informal impacts.

Formal Sources of Support
As discussed previously, the bare minimum among the SPPs we have surveyed across the West Coast and Colorado includes space at a private or public lot with some level of security and toilet facilities (usually a porta-potty). The JFS program varies somewhat from lot to lot with the greatest number of resources available at the Balboa lot, simply because this is the organization’s main campus and it has both Wi-Fi and showers. Clients at other lots do have access to these showers but for them it requires additional driving, and clients are loath to waste gas money on what they consider to be unnecessary trips. All JFS SPP clients have access to the following: toileting, handwashing, and shower facilities (located at two of the lots), staff support from 6-9 p.m., a case manager to whom they are assigned, referrals to other programs and resources as needed, hot meals 3 nights/week 23 and other (packaged)
meals and snacks the other nights, access to a microwave, hotpot, books and a seating area, financial literacy and budgeting support, a housing navigator, and financial support for various needs that may arise on a case-by-case basis (e.g., gas cards, paying for a critical car repair, first month rent plus security deposit for a client who has saved enough money and is ready to be rehoused, etc.).

Social and Emotional Supports
While it was easy to identify formal sources of support, it was difficult to capture the more intangible human element: the social and emotional experience and support that arise out of the relationships between both staff with clients, and clients with one another. These include a sense of community, of non-judgement, of reprieve from the averted eyes or the stigmatizing gaze of the public, both of which rob clients of the sense of dignity, shared humanity, and belonging we all need and deserve. These are nearly impossible to measure quantitatively but they are captured clearly in the words of clients in our listening sessions. When asked, “What has been helpful to you?” about the SPP, a frequent response was “safety.” Although many people (especially women, who had been sleeping in their cars on the streets and had been attacked or threatened) were referring to actual physical safety, most were also (or solely) referring to emotional and psychological safety. The lots are a place where they can let their guard down, relax, and engage in conversations with other clients simply as two people interacting (rather than as two unhoused people conversing). They do not (cannot) forget that they are unhoused, but in these interactions on the lot, this fact about them becomes merely an aspect of their whole self rather than the only thing that defines them.

23 Providing a warm meal to all clients at four lots is a monumental effort involving the solicitation and coordination of a fleet of volunteers. During the Shelter In Place order across California, JFS staff managed to organize the provision of meals nearly every night, but this pace proved impossible to maintain over time. Volunteers across San Diego continue to step up to provide meals, but they are doing so with less frequency. This means that some weeks, JFS is unable to meet its “three hot meals a week” goal.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 26 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 27 Many clients also spoke with gratitude toward both staff and other clients for the care they extended and for “treating (them) like fellow human beings.” The power and uplift of this experience cannot be overstated. It is relevant to questions about outcomes and impacts. Vehicle-based houselessness is growing rapidly and SPPs are a relatively new intervention. Assessing their effectiveness based on narrow outcome data (the percentage of people who are confirmed to have transitioned to “positive” exits, however that is defined, within a 4-6 month period) does not capture all that we suspect may be going on. As discussed previously, a very high percentage of clients leave the program as “unknown exits.” We cannot know, unfortunately, whether they end up with some sort of positive resolution (they move in with family, or friends, or find a rental they can afford), or a negative outcome (still sleeping in their car, or worse, on the streets). We also cannot know if the safety, supports, and resources made available to them while they stayed at the SPP had an effect on their outcome. The best we can do is to surmise, based on formal and informal interviews, listening sessions, and conversations with both clients and front-line staff. Based on this feedback, and in spite of many unknowns, we are comfortable asserting that the JFS SPP clearly helps people (as we outline further below), and that it is a worthwhile intervention to have available to unhoused San Diegans right now.

Mutual Aid
What we have observed, and heard directly from clients, is that people look out for and help one another on the lots, with many positive outcomes. This mutual aid creates an informal network of advice, and emotional and practical support that benefits and helps foster resilience for all. The relationships of reciprocal support which develop on the lots have a positive effect on all participants:
recipients of aid or care gain practical and emotional support; those offering that care or support are able to fulfill a valued social role as a helper, which is a welcome contrast to ways they often come to feel (internalized stigma and judgement can transform into excoriating self-talk). Helping others enables people to be lifted, even if only temporarily, out of a focus on their own basic-needs crisis, and oriented towards fulfilling higher-order needs of mastery, connection, and meaning/purpose.

A subset of clients aired complaints about the limitations of showers and shower time, about having to leave the lots so early, and occasionally about not feeling like they were being treated with compassion and respect. Living unhoused is very hard. What may seem like a small inconvenience or indignity to someone who is comfortably housed is experienced very differently by individuals who feel rubbed raw by the circumstances of their lives. It is important to be cognizant of this, and to pay special attention to our tone and choice of words. Small kindnesses make a difference. Notwithstanding the small number of disgruntled individuals on the lots, it remains the case that the vast majority of clients appreciate what the JFS SPP offers: a pause point, a reprieve amidst the grind, an opportunity to feel like an ordinary human being and community member again.

For roughly a fifth of the SPP households with greater earned income, the combination of programmatic, financial, social, and emotional supports offered by the SPP is just the launching board needed for becoming stably re-housed. For others, especially the growing number of older adults who are falling into homelessness and who live on fixed incomes, or for individuals who have disabilities and Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 27 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 28 a very limited capacity to earn a living income, the SPP serves as a harm reduction intervention, making what would otherwise feel like an intolerable, lonely, hopeless, anxiety-filled circumstance a little more tolerable. A significant subset of (usually older) clients are “long stayers” for the very reason that affording any kind of market rate rent in San Diego on a fixed (low) income is impossible. Lacking families who might be able to take them in or lend them financial support, they wait for Section 8 vouchers or senior subsidized units to become available, a wait that can take years.

Whether clients are among the fortunate percentage who are able to achieve a “positive exit,” or they have some other outcome, the Safe Parking Program provides immediate safety, security, care of basic needs, dignity, community, hope, and possibility which can only have a positive impact on both physical and psychological health. In that sense, we understand the SPP as a harm reduction model as much as an intervention aimed at getting clients stably housed as quickly as possible.

No single intervention can solve the complex “wicked problem” of homelessness; we need a multilayered, multi-pronged, upstream and downstream strategy to achieve that. Still, we are convinced, based on our data, that SPPs generally, and the JFS SPP model in particular, offer an important tool in our collective toolbox. Our research in Year 3 will give us a picture of longer-term impacts of participation in the JFS SPP as well as general insights about what helps and what hinders people in finding and maintaining stable housing.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 28 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 29 Educational Outcomes of Accompanying UC San Diego Course

Similar to Year 1, during this second academic year, we taught the two-quarter course series that we designed to accompany and support the research. Because we taught the course series during COVID, we feared that the remote format would detract from the impact of the experience. Although we were unable to create on-the-ground, in-person experiences for the students during the first quarter as we had done the prior year, with everyone fully vaccinated and safety measures in place, we were ultimately able to bring most of the students to each of the four lots during the spring quarter of 2021 to participate in the listening sessions, as well as conduct oral history interviews. Those students who were not living in San Diego during this quarter “Zoomed in” with student partners who were physically present. The arrangement was not without its challenges (Wi-Fi connectivity foremost), but we made it work and the results were very positive. Not only were we able to collect rich listening session data and personal narratives, but the impact on clients and students alike was positive and lasting.

To say that the students were affected by their conversations with SPP clients would be an understatement. Human stories are powerful; they give us new lenses on the world and on our lives.

What the students suffered from most was feeling that they were not able to personally do anything to help the people with whom they were engaging. We suggested that their mere attention, curiosity, respect and generous listening likely had a positive impact on their interlocutors. In fact, we heard this from a number of the interviewees. But the influence went both ways; as can be seen in the student quotes below, speaking with clients on the lots was tremendously impactful for students, positively affecting both their understanding of the issue, and their perceptions of unhoused individuals. One student even wrote a heartfelt letter to one of her interviewees, letting him know how much his words had affected her, and how grateful she felt that he had trusted her with his story.

In terms of measures, across the board, and according to multiple assessment tools (pre & post-course surveys, students’ self-assessment of learning, review of assignments, quality of research data contributed by students), 100% of the students in this year’s course had significant gains in multiple areas, including:
● Knowledge about the roots, history, demographics, humanscape and servicescape of homelessness;
● The experience of homelessness/houselessness and its impacts on physical, social, and psychological health and wellbeing; and
● Policy responses and programmatic interventions to houselessness.

Measure by measure data can be made available upon request.

Included are a sampling of student quotes from their final class survey.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 29 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 30 Urban Challenges: Homelessness in San Diego (UC San Diego Cohort 1, March 2020)

This course series has completely changed my outlook on homelessness, and the people that it encompasses. I came into this two-quarter course with my own subconscious attitudes and preconceived notions regarding unhoused individuals and now I can say with great confidence that my perception has changed for the better. I'm grateful for everything that I learned in the past year and hope to take this important knowledge with me throughout my career and undergraduate learning, as well as share this wealth of knowledge with my own social circle and family. We can all benefit from empathy and learning about others' experiences, especially experiences that are surrounded by stigma. – UC San Diego Student Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 30 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 31 STUDENT QUOTATIONS
The field research and the lectures combined really helped me dismantle the fear and discomfort (and in turn, shame) that I felt towards homeless people in years past. Because of this course, I have actually talked to several unhoused individuals that I've met out in the world and was even able to help a young woman and her dog get food and water :) It's really changed my outlook on life too; I understand my own privilege better, and how precarious so many families' financial situation is.

(This class) has taught me a lot about unhoused individuals. I actually found the topic of my honors thesis project because of this class, and I would like to help implement some of the houselessness solutions within Southern California in the future.

This class revolutionized my thinking about the issue of homelessness in our country.

It has given me a greater knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of homeless people and their lives. The JFS site visits were by far the most impactful element of the course, and I won't forget the people I met on those lots for a long time, and I hope to pass on their experiences and stories to others.

This course has really educated me about homelessness and housing. I really did not know anything about this topic before, but now I not only feel very knowledgeable, I am also able to put human faces to those who are homeless.

(The impact of this class has been) massive. I've learned things about myself that I didn't know I felt, I've learned how wrong I've been and I've learned how to change my own mind and understand that even as a "woke" progressive, we really don't have a big enough grasp as a society on these issues as we need to.

The impact on me is being able to see the reality of how homeless individuals live. We got a sneak peek into their lives and what hardships they go through. We got to hear a bit of their stories and it is shocking to hear why they are homeless or it is eye opening to hear that the event that caused these individuals to be placed in this situation can happen to any of us. It makes you rethink your situation and, in a sense, humbles you. It teaches you to appreciate things more and have more compassion for everyone in our society even the individuals who have their social identity robbed due to homelessness.

There have been many impacts, but the biggest has definitely been the experience of individually connecting with people experiencing houselessness. Sitting together, discussing life face-to-face (albeit covered by masks) with other humans has been tremendous, especially after being so connection-starved over the past year. The opportunity to go out into the world and do real fieldwork has given a completely new dimension to my education as an urbanist. I am less afraid to talk to people and grasp their sense of the problems faced in the communities we all inhabit together.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 31 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 32 Recommendations
Our recommendations span six categories ranging from those actions which might have direct positive impacts on SPP clients and SPP staff, to those which focus on broader policy issues.

A. Enhancing direct and indirect client supports

● Support the capacity of clients to increase their income (both employment-based and benefits-based): Higher income is associated with increased exits to both permanent and temporary housing. However, of the 602 exited heads of household who had total monthly income data for both their enrollment and exit, only two had demonstrated an income improvement. While there could be heads of household who have not exited who have increased their incomes or exited heads of household who increased their incomes but simply did not report their exit incomes, it is still clear that there is much room for improvement when it comes to helping clients increase their monthly incomes in order to improve their exit outcomes. Finding ways to partner with workforce development agencies and other employment training supports would be a valuable aid to clients particularly at this moment in time when many industries are having a hard time recruiting employees.

Many clients noted that simple logistical supports (Wi-Fi access, a laptop loaner program, access to a printer, advice on resumes) could help them gain employment. Additionally, helping clients to apply for SNAP, WIC, SSDI, VA, and other benefits may expand clients’ capacities to cover a wider range of permanent, stable housing options.

● Identify new strategies to support older heads of household, and learn from those older adults who do achieve positive exit outcomes: While lower monthly income and physical disability do explain part of the poorer exit outcomes exhibited by older heads of household, they do not provide a complete explanation for these outcomes. For older heads of household who do not have a disability and could work, it might be useful to develop partnerships with organizations who specialize in workforce services for older residents (e.g., AARP Foundation). For some older clients, working is not a viable option. Learning from past older clients who have been successful across a range of incomes could inform additional strategies that might increase success for the older population. For some older clients, income supports will be critical - very few clients 70 years and older exited to rentals without subsidies. For those who do have the income or supports to exit, we might find that social networks can provide the motivation and support necessary for successfully exiting. If that were the case, a secular approach modeled after a program like Bridge of Hope24 would

24Bridge of Hope is a faith-based model based in Pennsylvania that draws in community members to be of support (as “caring neighbors'') to individuals and families becoming re-housed after experiencing homelessness.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 32 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 33 be worthy of piloting. Social networks might be particularly important given that older clients return to SPP lots at higher rates. Building partnerships with other nonprofits who work with older adults (e.g., Serving Seniors and St. Paul’s PACE) may open up additional avenues for housing, connection, advocacy, and support.

Looking across other localities might surface other programmatic or policy approaches that improve outcomes for this population. The same approach to learning should be implemented to better assist clients who have spent a longer time being homeless (and have worse exit outcomes) and clients who are determined to be chronically homeless (and have higher rates of return to lots).

● Institute more robust programmatic interventions and follow-up protocols for households that exit to less stable destinations: Households exiting to subsidized and unsubsidized rentals or permanent housing with family have much better outcomes than those who exit to less stable destinations. Finding ways to support the latter, through follow-up calls, connections to other support, advocacy, or service organizations, or other means will help reduce the rate of returns to the SPPs and better guide households to more sustainable housing situations.

● Extend the operational hours at all lots, and offer 24-hour access for at least one lot:

Listening session feedback from SPP clients overwhelmingly indicated support for increased access to the lots during the day. Allowing clients to stay until 8 or 9am in the morning would reduce stress significantly for some, as they would have time to gather their thoughts, plan their day, and pack up their things in a calmer fashion. They could “have a cup of coffee and feel like a human again before being shooed off for the day.” Opening the lots at an earlier time (4pm or 5pm) would enable clients to get settled earlier and would offer more time for people to meet with their case managers. Finally, having at least one lot open 24 hours would take away the stress, mental effort, and “gas cost” of having to find a place to stay for the day, for those who are not employed.

● Enhance basic services and amenities at all lots: SPP clients indicated a strong desire for enhanced access to shower facilities, Wi-Fi, meals (as many evenings a week as possible), more trash bins, storage, mailboxes, microwave access, laptop loaners program, access to car battery chargers, and electronic charging stations (ECS). Wi-Fi and ECS in particular are critical to being able to search for jobs and rental opportunities, stay connected with loved ones, and remain hopeful. Shower facilities are a sore spot for many people as they are a basic need, but also experienced as a link to normalcy and a sense of dignity. 25 That showers
are only available 1-2 times/week per individual, and that the time offered (15 minutes) is

25Dignity was an issue that came up both explicitly and implicitly in both group and individual conversations with clients.

Human beings are social animals; we derive our sense of worth from the world around us: from how people treat us, from the subtle and not so subtle messages we receive in public and private.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 33 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 34 so limited is a source of great frustration on top of an already-present mountain of stress.

The cleanliness and functioning of the porta-potties and restrooms was another point of aggravation that came up repeatedly, especially since these are a core need, and often the only places where people can get even a modicum of privacy after a day of feeling watched, scrutinized, and judged. For some, the bathroom or porta-potty is the only place to change into and out of work clothes.

Clients do not expect JFS staff to constantly clean these spaces; rather, they would like to figure out a strategy, as a community, to keep the bathrooms clean and hygienic for all. A few small intervention strategies would be to hold a community conversation about working together to keep the bathrooms clean, having signage on the bathroom doors reminding everyone to clean up after themselves as if it were their own home, and tools available to help keep them to that communal promise (disinfectant, wet wipes, paper towels, etc.).

Another suggestion would be to set up a small space with a curtain and a mirror so that clients needing to dress for work didn’t have to do so in the bathroom or porta-potty.

To the extent that JFS can (continue to) create conditions that foster safety and security, attend to people’s basic physical needs, and enable them to maintain human connection, hope, and dignity in the face of blows to their sense of self-efficacy and autonomy, it will remain a critical support to the increasing number of San Diegans in this liminal space of living out of their vehicles.

● Build relationships and partnerships with other service providers, educational institutions, and civic, healthcare, advocacy, and community organizations: Tapping into the extensive array of skills, resources, and opportunities across the community and making the SPP lots a place-based conduit for these can ease clients’ stress and create pathways to educational and employment opportunities, with positive effects for both the JFS SPP and community- based partners. This might include bringing local community college auto mechanic training program students on site to help clients with small repairs, or even a small lecture series on car maintenance or identifying mechanical problems to help clients to be more knowledgeable regarding their vehicles. Other suggestions include partnering with local law schools to bring legal clinics to the lots, County Public Health or community health clinics to offer health fairs, workforce development agencies to bring resume and interview workshops, etc. With regard to connecting clients to outside resources, trusted relationships help to facilitate “warm hand-offs” to physical and mental healthcare, employment supports, legal aid, Veterans Administration, YMCA, senior services, after school programs for children, etc.

● Reach out to local grocery stores, restaurants, and businesses to donate gift cards, food, or supplies to support clients, both on the lot and as they transition back to housing: Some clients pointed out that local businesses (e.g., Pep Boys, AutoZone, Home Depot, Target, Vons, Ralphs, Walmart, Subway, Starbucks, etc.) might be willing to donate a small amount Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 34 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 35 of merchandise or store credit (gift cards) to support a community-based, nonprofit program like the JFS SPP. Such donations could lighten the load of clients, since most have exceedingly tight budgets.

● Provide Quality of Life Vouchers: Pursue external funding to provide clients with vouchers/financial assistance for the following types of quality of life supports: gym memberships (LA Fitness, Planet Fitness, YMCA), AAA memberships, storage unit vouchers, PO boxes, vouchers to local laundromats, gas cards, etc.

B. Increasing staff training and support

● Provide additional and ongoing training for frontline staff: Expanding staff members’ skill sets and broadening their understanding of both homelessness and about how JFS SPP fits into the larger ecosystem of services/solutions will give them additional tools and knowledge to support clients.

● Arrange additional training and opportunities for interaction, information sharing, and mutual support among frontline staff: Supporting people in a housing crisis is emotionally exhausting work; finding ways for staff to debrief, share thoughts, and support one another will likely help them and translate to even stronger supports for clients. The staff listening sessions proved to be a worthwhile experience for all those staff who participated, as they were able to hear and learn from colleagues, share their insights, and make suggestions for how to improve things on the lots. They are a valuable resource to tap, and their wellbeing and support have a tremendous influence on the experience of clients on the lots. Building in a paid hour each week for staff to exchange strategies and lessons learned, collaborate in problem solving, and simply affirm one another’s efforts would likely be of great benefit.

● Convene client-facing staff to create a “checklist” of policies, practices, and procedures to be followed daily, weekly and monthly and to organize a set of resources that can expand everyone’s capacity to help clients: Frontline staff are capable and knowledgeable but they come with different bodies of expertise and experience. Holding a meeting to create, and later refine, a shared list of rules and procedures for all lots will help to clarify expectations for all, while offering an opportunity for feedback and discussion. An SPP checklist could include morning and evening procedures, troubleshooting suggestions, and answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) by clients. A formal, organized set of resources can ensure that all staff members have access to the knowledge needed to meet the diverse set of needs that clients present.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 35 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 36 C. Fostering community, peace, wellness, and resource-sharing on the lots

● Foster greater connection and mutual support among clients: Being unhoused has negative social and psychological effects, and both are related to physical and mental health. Clients can be important emotional and practical supports to one another, which may improve outcomes. Some clients are more social and are inclined to reach out, have casual conversations, and provide support. Others may need a little support in cultivating connections. Interactions can be fostered by creating physical spaces where people can gather (e.g., seating in common areas), and programming (support groups, meditation groups, cafe and conversation hours, monthly movie or music nights, etc.), and opportunities to contribute (cleaning up, helping to write and distribute a short weekly newsletter, being an orientation support person for people just coming into the lot, etc.).

● Provide an orientation flyer to clients as they enter the lot: Some clients shared that it would have helped to have a single-page flyer handed to them upon entry that had a map of the lot with the location of the bathrooms, common area, and staff area, as well as basic rules (where to park, where not to park, hours of operation, etc.), information (showers availability and sign-up procedures, schedule of meetings with case managers, etc.), and expectations to help orient them when they were overwhelmed and confused.

● Expand sources and sites of information and resource-sharing: Some clients are internet- savvy and others much prefer old fashioned paper resources. In all cases, we heard a call for more information about where they might find services and resources (access to mental and physical healthcare, scheduled meals, food banks and donation centers, senior supports, advocacy organizations, supports for families). They also wanted a space to be able to share resources with one another. A combination of a large bulletin board that all could contribute to, a pamphlet with a list of resources and community organizations, and a website filled with resources and links would be very welcome.

● Work with clients to identify jobs/roles on the lot to improve quality of life: Many clients feel bored, useless, and frustrated as they try to negotiate their housing crisis. At the same time, they see challenges on the lot and ways they could contribute to make things better (safer, cleaner, more tolerable, more conducive to people connecting and having a sense of hope).

Creating an avenue for people to contribute to the smoother running of the lots would foster a sense of purpose and usefulness for individuals, as well as (potentially) a sense of community at the lots. If any additional resources happen to be available, they could be used to cover a small stipend or other compensation (e.g., gas cards) for the clients in these roles, although this would likely still be of benefit without compensation.

● Encourage and facilitate links between clients and community members: Having supports and social connections in place when ready to leave the SPP lot will increase likelihood of Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 36 1/24/2022 3:50:10 PM 37 staying stably housed. There are some pilot programs that can be emulated which identify volunteers in the community (specifically in or near the neighborhoods where clients will be moving) and connect people being rehoused with them. The volunteers make a commitment to support a particular family with practical needs (getting children registered in the local school, learning where local parks, grocery stores, and public transportation are located, support with challenges like car repairs, etc.), as well as be a social connector with others in the neighborhood. Relationships, even if they are formally arranged initially, can have a powerfully positive influence on people’s ability to remain stably housed.

D. Further inquiry: collecting data to better understand and address program and client challenges

● Investigate and resolve the lackluster outcomes of male-headed families: Male-headed families have fewer permanent exits than female-headed families and more negative exits, particularly to emergency shelters despite having comparable income levels. Learning the causes of these disparate outcomes, and paying attention to the strategies, attitudes, and circumstances of female-headed families may improve understanding and the capacity to support male-headed families, enabling all to reach their fullest potential.

● Investigate the factors associated with more, and more rapid, positive exits: Understanding the characteristics and conditions that support success is as important as understanding the factors associated with slower exits, no exits, and returns to the lot. Once these factors are understood, JFS (and partnering organizations) can innovate and evaluate various (educational, environmental, service and/or policy) interventions to try to foster them across the client population.

● Create some avenue through which clients can air concerns, provide feedback, and offer suggestions for improving the lot, including those they can institute themselves: Having some sense that our voices are heard and our concerns matter is important to all human beings, but particularly so when we feel largely invisible and voiceless in so many areas of our everyday life. Feedback can be framed as an opportunity to offer constructive feedback about something that isn’t working or could be improved, and to offer a possible solution.

For example, a Constructive Feedback Box could be set up in the common area at each lot and paper and pens be made available. Any submissions would need to follow a format, e.g., name, observation (whether positive, negative, or mixed), what is being suggested to do about it, and who could implement the solution, i.e., staff, the individual offering the suggestion, other clients on the lot, or entities outside of the lot.

● Follow up with clients once they have left the lot: To the extent possible, recognizing staffing constraints, conduct follow-up calls with former SPP clients over the course of 6-12 months Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 37 1/24/2022 3:50:11 PM 38 in order to better understand longer term outcomes, challenges, and factors which foster success. Lessons learned can inform services and scaffolding for subsequent clients coming to the SPP.

E. Policy advocacy

● Advocate for greater access to both permanent supportive housing and subsidized vouchers:

For many clients, particularly those with a low, fixed income, becoming stably rehoused is virtually impossible without subsidized housing or rental support.

● Advocate for HUD to include SPPs in their eligibility criteria for Continuum of Care funding and Emergency Shelter Grants: Given the positive impact of SPPs and the growing role they play in the ecosystem of responses to homelessness, efforts should be made to lobby local, state and national officials to enable SPPs to apply for these critical sources of funding from HUD. The City of San Diego could volunteer to pilot such an effort.

● Advocate for “long-stayers” and chronically unhoused clients to be prioritized for Project Homekey: Permanent housing should be prioritized for the hardest to house subpopulations.

● Advocate for more robust data collection and program evaluation of homelessness interventions: Understanding a problem is critical to solving it. We cannot know what programs and interventions should be upscaled until we evaluate them for effectiveness.

We cannot improve the services we do provide unless we understand the effects they have on clients. Building regular data collection and program evaluation into funding contracts will benefit us all as we collectively tackle the challenge of homelessness across our region.

F. Spearheading further inquiry and shared learning regarding the Safe Parking Program model

● JFS should play a leading role in facilitating a community of practice and sharing best practices of SPPs: Jewish Family Service of San Diego has one of the largest and most comprehensive SPPs in the U.S. With the recent expiration of the eviction moratorium, there is a high likelihood that demand for SPPs will surge. JFS is in a position to share best practices. One suggestion (already underway) is to spearhead and convene a Community of Practice for mutual learning, service improvement, and collective policy advocacy.

● To the extent possible, continue to collect data, monitor outcomes, listen to clients and staff, and learn from such inquiry and critical programmatic appraisal: JFS is a model learning Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 38 1/24/2022 3:50:11 PM 39 organization, having shown itself to be an eager partner in the evaluation of its own program. Recognizing that regular data collection and analysis is difficult without external funding and support, we nonetheless encourage JFS and other safe parking programs to build in evaluative mechanisms in hopes of continuing this commitment to providing the most appropriate, effective, and helpful services to its clients.

● Engage in public education efforts about the Safe Parking Program and how it fits into a broader set of solution strategies to solve homelessness in San Diego: Public attitudes can make or break effective strategies, and the support of policymakers is also critical. JFS can harness stories and data arising out of this research to educate both policymakers and the public about the causes of homelessness, the diversity and humanity of the SPP clients, and solutions to houselessness which include safe parking programs as a tool in the larger toolbox of interventions.

Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 39 1/24/2022 3:50:11 PM 40 Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Social Sciences Division
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Avenue
La Jolla, CA 92093

Co-Principal Investigators:

Leslie R. Lewis, PhD., MPH [email protected]

Mirle Rabinowitz-Bussell, PhD. [email protected]
Evaluation of JFS Safe Parking Program Report_January 21 2021_print.pdf 40 1/24/2022 3:50:11 PM

PLEASE CLICK ON THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SEAL

TO RETURN TO THIS PAGE
CLICK HERE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS' REPORT DATED APRIL 11, 2022 CLICK HERE FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT DATED AUGUST 12, 2022 MARK PESTRELLA, Director
April 11, 2022

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
''To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service" 900 SOUTH FREMONT A VENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (626) 458-5100
http://dpw.lacounty.gov
TO: Each Supervisor
FROM: Mark Pestrella, PE
Director of Public Works
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:

P.O. BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460

IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER ro FILE: T-3
10346-2-1
BOARD MOTION OF JANUARY 11, 2022, AGENDA ITEM 3

ADDRESSING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ENCAMPMENTS DURING
COVID-19 RECOVERY
On January 11, 2022, the Board approved a motion instructing Public Works to report back on the best practices from across the State that leverage parking regulations to reduce repopulation of recreational vehicles (RV) in hot spot areas and around schools.

Public Works developed a survey that was distributed to multiple regional and municipal agencies across the State to learn about their current practices and experiences in addressing vehicular homelessness and RV encampments. Survey responses and subsequent discussions with these agencies revealed the following trends and commonalities found among responding agencies:
• RV encampment hot spots generally develop on streets where potential interaction with residents or tenants was minimal, such as on streets with no fronting development or streets in industrial and commercial areas.
• While RV encampment hot spots sometimes develop near schools, responding agencies did not note any issues or trends near schools. • Parking regulations were seldom used directly to address the presence of RVs in hot spot areas or around schools. There was typically another nexus for implementing parking regulations, such as the need for parking turnover or health and safety concerns.
• Parking regulations mostly played a supporting role to any program addressing RV encampments. Access to health and social services, as well as alternative housing, including off-street safe places to park were essential to address recurring issues.

Each Supervisor
April 11 , 2022

• Parking regulations were only effective with consistent enforcement of posted parking regulations.
• Excessively targeted or localized parking regulations were likely to result in shifting RV encampments to neighboring areas, triggering additional calls for parking restrictions.
• A commonly used parking regulation throughout the State was the overnight parking restriction (e.g., No Parking 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) that applies to all users of the restricted roadway which may unduly impact parking needs in residential areas, as well as in commercial and industrial areas with night shift operations. • Active enforcement of existing parking regulations in the State, such as the 72-hour limit for parking [California Vehicle Code Section 22651 (k)], impoundment of illegally parked unregistered vehicles [California Vehicle Code Section 22651 O)], or restricting the parking of vehicles over 6 feet in height within 100 feet of an intersection [California Vehicle Code Section 22507(a)] have proven to have some success in deterring RV encampments, particularly in areas where more restrictive regulations were not feasible.

Additionally, a growing number of municipal agencies, including the Cities of Hawthorne and Long Beach have adopted citywide ordinances that prohibit the long-term parking of larger vehicles, such as RVs without a permit. The effectiveness of these ordinances is also dependent on consistent enforcement.

Public Works' current practices in applying parking regulations to assist the County's efforts to address RV encampments are as follows:
• A site-specific or street-specific approach is generally used based on the request or concern received and on feedback from the impacted residents and commercial tenants in the vicinity.
• Street sweeping parking prohibition signs are posted in areas that did not already have such signs, which are enforceable.
• Street sweeping parking regulations are modified to include tow-away provisions for locations with recurring compliance issues.

Each Supervisor
April 11 , 2022

• Restricting the parking of vehicles over 6 feet in height within 100 feet of an intersection is considered if the restriction enhances traffic conditions at an intersection.
• Time-limit parking regulations are considered for streets where frequent parking turnover is desirable and appropriate public outreach has been conducted. • Overnight parking regulations (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) are considered if social and health services efforts are not deemed adequate.
o Stopping prohibitions or red curbs are typically not considered as it would result in prohibiting stopping and parking at all times which could unduly impact road users during time periods in which some stopping, or parking may be beneficial. • Referrals for the enforcement of 72-hour parking limits were also made to facilitate greater parking turnover where appropriate.

Based on a review of County Code Chapter 16.86 there is an existing prohibition of camping (which includes the use of a vehicle for living accommodations) on any public street. Violation of this chapter is considered an infraction that is punishable by an escalating fine.

Additionally, several unincorporated communities, such as Altadena and Marina del Rey, have existing nonconforming vehicle ordinances (County Code Section 16.54.075).

These ordinances restrict the parking of larger vehicles, such as RVs without a permit.

To provide relief to the millions of residents sheltering in place throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions throughout the State relaxed or even suspended their parking enforcement efforts. While necessary to avoid imposing any additional financial burden on residents, this practice may have exacerbated RV encampment concerns.

Over the past year, parking enforcement has been gradually reimplemented in most areas. However, the long-term effects of this lapse in enforcement are still being experienced throughout the State with some RV encampment areas becoming almost permanent fixtures. County homeless social and health service providers are working closely with enforcement agencies to bring enforcement in these areas up to pre-pandemic levels without undoing the progress made in connecting the people experiencing vehicular homelessness with housing and services.

Each Supervisor
April 11 , 2022
Page4
Based on the information provided by the responding agencies, the review of Public Works' current practices and policies and ongoing efforts by homeless service providers and enforcement agencies, the following practices are recommended to address RV encampments:
• Parking regulations are a tool that can be effective in managing the presence of RV encampments on public streets. However, it does not serve as the solution to vehicular homelessness. Without the addition of alternative housing, including off-street safe places to park, RVs displaced by parking regulations will relocate to other less restrictive areas where the same issues and concerns are likely to be encountered. The focus should remain on providing social and health services to assist those experiencing vehicular homelessness find alternative housing.

Only when those efforts have proven ineffective, and the presence of RVs constitutes a clear health and safety concern as defined by the appropriate agencies, should the implementation of new parking regulations be considered. • Parking regulations are only effective if appropriately enforced. Multi-agency commitment to consistent parking enforcement is critical to the success of any parking regulations. All proposed parking regulations should be vetted by the appropriate enforcement agencies to ensure they are committed and adequately equipped to maintain effective enforcement levels.
• The least restrictive parking regulations should be considered first to minimize the impacts to the surrounding community. For example, existing street sweeping parking regulations may be modified to include a tow-away provision to encourage the turnover of parking. Overnight parking regulations should only be considered when social and health services efforts and enforcement of applicable laws are not adequate.
• Parking regulations should be considered using a less site-specific but more holistic approach over wider areas of impact to reduce the likelihood of RV encampments moving to adjacent neighborhoods.
• In the absence of adequate alternative housing, including any shortages of off-street safe places to park, parking regulations should allow for controlled RV parking at locations where they will have the least impact to the surrounding community and where health and safety concerns can be monitored and addressed.

- MORE -
MOTION
SOLIS ___________________________
KUEHL ___________________________
HAHN ___________________________
BARGER ___________________________
MITCHELL ___________________________
AGN. NO.

MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL January 11, 2022 Addressing RV Encampments During COVID-19 Recovery
On January 30, 2018, the Los Angeles County (County) Board of Supervisors (Board) adopted a motion instructing the Directors of the Departments of Public Works, Public Health (DPH), Regional Planning, and the Chief Executive Office's Homeless Initiative, in coordination with the Sheriff's Department and County Counsel, to report back on recommendations fo r developing sustainable solutions to assist individuals living in recreational vehicles (RVs). Th e report back dated June 28, 2018 included recommendations on: (1) the proper disposal of unclaimed, dilapidated, and hazardous RVs; (2) minimizing improper disposal of RV waste; and (3) the creation of safe parking for RVs.

In li ght of the unprecedented times we have faced in the last two years, it is imperative for the County to update the recommendations and re-evaluate our approach to addressing RV encampments given their growth in the unincorporated areas and across the County. Almost four years after the adoption of the 2018 motion , the County has learned many lessons from the Vehicular Homeless Outreach Project (VHOP), a pilot program led by the St. Joseph Center. It is critical that the County use all of its current tools and resources to connect people experiencing homelessness (PEH) living in dangerous conditions in RV encampments to permanent housing; followed by proper MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
January 11, 2022

disposal of RVs to clear the public rights-of-way and create safe and clean public spaces for all County residents.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought enormous economic and health challenges for all our constituents. The County mobilized all of its departments to respond to this emergency in accordance with the C enters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and DPH guidelines. As part of the CDC guidelines, County teams engaging PEH have prioritized connections to interim housing such as Project Roomkey to limit the exposure and transmission of the virus.

The County’s stay-in-place order was implemented to protect both unhoused and housed constituents. Now almost two years into the pandemic, as we examine actions taken to address the public health crisis, our housing crisis and our homelessness crisis, there is an opportunity to integrate into our recove ry lessons learned to address PEH in RV encampments.

Since 2018, and especially during the last 24 months, while we appropriately focused County resources to housing those most at risk and vulnerable to COVID-19, we have seen an extraordinary growth of RV encampments. This growth has caused a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for both the unhoused population residing in the RVs and the residents and businesses around the RV encampments.

According to the VHOP team, in the last year alone —of the total number of RVs they came across, 40% were dilapidated and in need of towing and removal ; 30% were mobile but unhealthy ; and only 20% were mobile and in healthy conditions. And the average Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assist ance Prescreen Tool (the tool used to identify those most in need of housing and support intervention) score of PEH living in RVs was 8.4. The score means that PEH living in RVs are higher acuity individuals in need of permanent housing . However, most individuals in the vehicular homeless population have some source of income, either G eneral Relief, Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance and can pay partially for rent in the appropriate housing program. The VHOP team also noted that a significant number of people living in the RVs were undocumented and refused housing out of fear of being deported and having identities shared with government agencies.

MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
January 11, 2022

In addition, in the absence of safe parking locations for RVs with t he appropriate supportive services. an underground economy has emerged. RVs are cycled back into the community from tow-yards. These RVs are bought sometimes without the necessary documentation, rented to PEH and used to run an underground economy in which PEH are physically abused and threatened. Owners of some RVs have become in reality slum lords as they abuse the ir tenants with physical threats, beatings, burning of RVs , and more. It is critical for the County’s teams to prioritize and address the hot spots across the County where crime and exploitation have increased, with a particular focus on the unincorporated communities.

It is therefore appropriate to update the 2018 report and its recommendations given the County’s updated priorities and COVID-19 economic recovery goals in order to address RV encampments strategically and thoughtfully while at the same time improving the quality of life for all of our constituents
I THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

1. Instruct the Executive Director of the Chief Executive Office’s (CEO) Homeless Initiative (HI), in collaboration with the Directors of the Department of Public Works (DPW), Department of Public Health (DPH), Department of Regional Planning (DRP), Department of Mental Health (DMH), and the Department of Health Services (DHS), and in coordination with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), the St. Joseph Vehicular Homeless Outreach Program (VHOP), and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), to evaluate and update the June 28, 2018 Report for Sustainable Solutions to Assist Homeless People Living in Recreational Vehicles (RV) and report back to the Board of Supervisors (Board) in writing within 60 days. The updated report should include but not be limited to:
a. The number of RVs that have been illegally obtained, that have missing plates or Vehicle Identification Numbers , whose owners cannot be identified, or that are deemed hazardous and unsafe . The costs to tow and dismantle these RVs should be included in the report.

MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
January 11, 2022

b. Identify hot spot areas in or around RV encampments where within the past 24 months, an increase in crime has been documented or increased criminal activity has been reported.
c. Identify hot spot RV encampment areas within 500 feet of schools. d. An inventory of parking restrictions currently in place in all hot spot RV encampment areas identified above, an assessment of parking enforcement efforts at these locations, and identification of resources needed to improve parking enforcement efforts.
e. Recommendations to update County towing vendors to ensure compliance against the lien sale of hazardous RVs by lie nholders for low-value RVs (valued at $500 or less) per California Vehicle Code section 22669.

2. Direct the CEO to collaborate with the Directors of DPW, DRP, DMH, and DPH, and the Sheriff, to identify existing and new resources to support a Countywide RV encampment program to implement recommendations from directive 1, prioritizing hot spots, schools, RV removal and dismantling, and piloting Safe RV Parking sites.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

1. Instruct the Director of DPW to report back in writing within 90 days on best practices from across the state that leverage parking regulations to reduce re - population of RVs in hot spot areas and around schools.

2. Instruct the CEO - Real Estate Division to identify County parcels that can be used as off-site parking locations to assist PEH living in RV and report back in writing in 90 days the locations in each Supervisorial District.

3. Request LASD to report back in writing in 90 days on the best practices from across the State regarding outreach strategies and parking enforcement for PEH living in RV and identify the resources necessary to implement the best practices.

4. Instruct the Director of DPH to report back in writing in 90 day s on the best practices from across the State regarding the sustainable solutions for proper MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
January 11, 2022

disposal of waste to assist PEH living in RV, including mobile disposal of RV waste.

5. Instruct the Director of the CEO – HI to report back in writing in 90 days on the best practices from across the State regarding sustainable solutions to assist PEH living in RV.
# # #
(IG/LS)
CountyofLosAngeles

CHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICE
KennethHahnHallofAdministration
500WestTempleStreet,Room713,LosAngeles,California90012
(213)974-1101
http:l/ceo.Iacounty.gov
BoardofSupervisors
HILDAL.SOLIS
August12,2022FirstDistrict
HOLLYJ.MITCHELL
SecondDistrict

SHEILAKUEHL
ThirdDistrict
To:SupervisorHollyJ.Mitchell,Chair
S
.LJ[.-IIJANICEHAHN upervisorL.OiiSFourthDistrict
SupervisorSheilaKuehiKATHRYNBARGER
SupervisorJaniceHahnFifthDistrict
Supervisor
From:FesiaA.Davenport
ChiefExecutive
ADDRESSINGRVENCAMPMENTSDURINGTHECOVID-19RECOVERY(ITEMNO.3, AGENDAOFJANUARY11,2022)
OnJanuary11,2022,theBoardofSupervisors(Board)adoptedamotiondirectingthe ChiefExecutiveOfficeHomelessInitiative(CEO-HI),incollaborationwiththe DepartmentofPublicWorks(DPW),PublicHealth(DPH),RegionalPlanning(DRP), MentalHealth(DMH),HealthServices(DHS),theLosAngelesCountySheriff’sDepartment (LASD),theSt.JosephCenterVehicularHomelessnessOutreachProgram(VHOP),andthe LosAngelesHomelessServicesAuthority(LAHSA),toevaluateandupdatetheJune28,2018, reportonsustainablesolutionstoassistpeopleexperiencinghomelessness(PEH)livingin recreationalvehicles(RVs).Thisreportaddressesthedirectives,asdescribedinAttachmentI.

BACKGROUND
PriortotheCOVID-19pandemic,theCEO-HI,inpartnershipwithrelevantCountydepartments andagencies,conductedextensiveresearchtoprovideeffectiverecommendationson sustainablesolutionstoassistPEHlivinginRVs.However,the pandemichashadsignificant financialandhealthimpactsonresidentsintheCounty,especiallyourhouselessneighbors.

TheseimpactsmayhaveshiftedthelandscapeandresourcesrequiredtosupportPEHlivingin RVstransitiontomoresuitablehousingsolutions.

Therefore,inresponsetotheJanuary11,2022,motion,theCEO-HI,incollaborationwiththe Countydepartmentsandagencieslistedabove,formedaworkinggroup(“Workgroup”)toreview andanalyzeeachdirective.TheCEO-HIfacilitatedseveralmeetingswiththeWorkgroupto compiledata,revisitpreviousrecommendationsmadeinresponsetopriormotions,anddevelop proposedsolutionstoassistPEHthatarelivinginRVs.

AttachmentIlistheWorkgroup’scomprehensivereportthataddresseseachofthedirectivesof thismotion.

FESIAA.DAVENPORT
ChiefExecutiveOfficer
“ToEnrichLivesThroughEffectiveAnd CaringService”
EachSupervisor
August12,2022
Page2

PROPOSEDRECOMENDATION
TheWorkgrouprecommendsdevelopingand implementingapilotRVencampmentprogramto obtainabetterunderstandingoftheresourcesneededtoeffectivelyassistPEHlivinginRVs countywide.TheWorkgrouprecommendsthelaunchofthepilotaroundanidentifiedRV encampmentwithinServicePlanning Area(SPA)6,whichalsohasthe highestnumberofRVs locatedwithinitsboundaries(accordingtodatafromthe2020HomelessCount).Inaddition, withinSPA6,SupervisorialDistrict2fundstheVHOPteamatSt.JosephCentertosupport outreacheffortsforvehicularhomelessness.VHOPconductstargeted outreachtoPEHliving inRVsandprovides incentivesforaccessingservicesandagreeingtoturnovertheirRVtothe Countyfordestruction.

Thepilotwilltakeintoconsiderationresourcesandrecommendationsidentifiedintheattached report,whichincludes1)identificationofCountyparcelsthatcanbeusedasRVstorage solutions,2)theuseoftheLAHSAandLASDHomelessOutreachServicesTeam(HOST)to addressRVencampments,3)thedevelopmentofaCountywideEncampmentProtocolforRVs, 4)leveragingexistinghousingresources,and5)theuseofparkingregulationstoaddresssafety concerns.

FeedbackfromoutreachworkerswhohaveengagedwithRVdwellersindicateareluctancefrom PEHlivinginRVstogiveuptheirvehicletoacceptatemporaryhousingsolution,suchasa motelroomorshelterplacement.Toaddressthisconcern,furtherattentionwillbefocusedon theuseofCounty-ownedlandtoallowpeoplelivinginRVstostoretheir vehiclewhiletheyare inaninterimhousingplacement,withtheagreementthatoncepermanenthousingisfound,the RVwillbeturnedovertotheCountyfordestruction.Thepilotwillconcentrateonhuman- centeredoutreacheffortstoprovidecompassionateengagementandservicestothisvulnerable population.

Thepilotwouldincludemembersfromthe currentWorkgroup,includingbutnotlimitedto; CEO-HI,LAHSAandLASDHOST,St.JosephCenterVHOPteam,DMH,DHS,DPW,DRP, andCountyCounsel.

NEXTSTEPS
CEO-HIisworkingwithpartnerstoenhancetheCountywideEncampmentProtocol(CEP)to strengthenhowRVencampmentswillbe handledaspartoftheCEP.Thisprocessisexpected tobecompletedbySeptember2022.

Uponreleaseofthe2022LosAngelesHomelessCountdata,CEO-HIwillworkwith LAHSAand DPWtoupdatethe analysisofRVencampmentstoidentify“hotspots”Countywide.CEO-HI willreconvenetheWorkgrouptoreviewtheupdated data,andidentifytheadditionalresources neededtodevelopaCountywideRVencampmentprogram.

ThenextreporttotheBoardontherevisedCEP,updatedassessmentofRVencampments, andoptionsforexpanding theRVencampmentprogram,istargetedforNovember18,2022.

EachSupervisor
August12,2022
Page3
Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthismatter,pleasecontactmeor CheriTodoroff,ExecutiveDirectorofHomelessInitiative,at(213)974-1752or ctodoroffceo.lacounty,qov.

FAD:JMN:CT
JR:LC:ym
Attachments
ExecutiveOffice,BoardofSupervisors
CountyCounsel
Sheriff
HealthServices
MentalHealth
PublicHealth
PublicWorks
RegionalPlanning
LosAngelesHomelessServicesAuthority

ATTACHMENTI
ADDRESSINGRVENCAMPMENTSDURINGTHE COVID-19RECOVERY

BOARDDIRECTIVES
EvaluateandupdatetheJune28,2018,reportonsustainablesolutionstoassistpeople experiencinghomelessness(PEH)livinginrecreational vehicles(RVs).Thisincludes:
•ThenumberofRVsthathave beenillegallyobtained,thathavemissingplatesor VehicleIdentificationNumbers,whose owners cannotbeidentified,orthatare deemed hazardousandunsafe.ThecoststotowanddismantletheseRVsshould be includedinthereport;
•IdentificationofhotspotareasinoraroundRVencampmentswherewithinthepast 24months,anincreaseincrimehasbeendocumentedorincreasedcriminalactivity hasbeenreported;
•IdentificationofhotspotRVencampmentareaswithin500feetofschools; •AninventoryofparkingrestrictionscurrentlyinplaceinallhotspotRVencampment areasidentifiedabove,anassessmentofparkingenforcementeffortsatthese locations,andidentificationofresources neededtoimprove parkingenforcement efforts;and
•RecommendationstoupdateCountytowingvendorstoensurecomplianceagainst theliensaleofhazardousRVsbylienholdersforlow-valueRVs(valuedat$500or less)perCaliforniaVehicleCodesection 22669.

ThemotionfurtherdirectstheCEOtocollaboratewiththeDirectorsofDPW,DRP,DMH, DPH,andtheLASD,toidentifyexistingandnewresourcestosupportaCountywideRV encampmentprogramtoimplementrecommendationsfromtheabovedirectives, prioritizinghotspots,schools,RVremovalanddismantling,andpilotingSafeRVParking sites.

Additionally,theBoarddirectsthefollowingtoinformeffortstoaddressRVencampments:
•DPWtoreportbackonbestpracticesfromacrosstheStatethatleverageparking regulationstoreducere-populationofRVsinhotspotareasandaroundschools; •CEO-RealEstateDivisionto identifyCountyof LosAngeles(County)parcels thatcan beusedasoff-site parkinglocationstoassistPEHlivinginRVsandthelocationsin eachSupervisorialDistrict;
• LASDtoreportbackonthebestpracticesfromacrosstheStateregardingoutreach strategiesandparkingenforcementforPEHlivinginRVsandidentifytheresources necessarytoimplementthebestpractices;
•DPHtoreportbackonthebestpracticesfromacrosstheStateregardingthe sustainablesolutionsforproperdisposalofwastetoassistPEHlivinginRVs,including mobiledisposalofRVwaste;and
•CEO—HItoreport backonthebestpracticesfromacrosstheStateregarding sustainablesolutionstoassistPEHlivinginRVs.

ADDRESSING

RECREATIONALVEHICLE

ENCAMPMENTSDURING
COVID-19RECOVERY
AUGUST2022
LosAngelesCounty
ChiefExecutiveOffice
HomelessInitiative
••—;.—.—--—
-
gzP
—

ATTACHMENTII
AddressingRecreationalVehicleEncampments
DuringCOVID-19Recovery
Overview
TheinformationprovidedinthisreportisinresponsetotheJanuary11,2022,motionadoptedby theLosAngelesCountyBoardofSupervisors(Board)—whichcontainedmultipledirectives—all aimedataddressingRecreationalVehicle(RV)encampmentsduringtheCCVID-19recovery.

Background
TheCCVID-19pandemichashadsignificanteconomicandhealthimpactsonLosAngelesCounty residents.Althoughfederal,State,and Countyreliefresourceswerecreatedto provideprotections againsttheuncertaintycausedbythepandemic,thenumberofindividualsandfamiliesfacing financialandhousinginstabilitycontinuestorise.Theseunprecedentedtimes havealso exacerbatedthehomeless servicesdeliverysystem,ascapacityatinterimhousingsiteswere reducedtocomplywithPublicHealthguidelinesandtopreventtransmissionofthevirus. Many interimhousingsites/sheltershave alsoencounteredandcontinuetofaceisolation/quarantineorders duetocoronavirusoutbreaks.

Thisimpactcanalsobeseeninthe increasedvisibilityofstreethomelessnessacrosscommunities inLosAngelesCounty,includingthepresenceofRVsandcampers.Forpeopleexperiencing homelessness(PEH)orfacing financialhardship,RVsandcampersareoftenseenasaviableform ofshelterthatprovidesprivacyandsafety.

Evenpriortothepandemic,RVandvehicularhomelessnesshasbeenafocusoftheBoardand examinedinpriorreportstotheBoard.IncollaborationwithrelevantCountydepartmentsandthe LosAngeles HomelessServicesAuthority(LAHSA),theChiefExecutiveOffice—HomelessInitiative (CEO-HI)providedreportsthatincludeinsightandrecommendations focusedonsustainable solutionsfor PEHwhoarelivinginCampers/RVs. Therefore,thisreportseekstorevisitprevious recommendationsmadeintheJune2018,BoardMotionon RVsandaddresstheinformationsought fromthedirectiveslistedintheJanuary11,2022,motion on“AddressingRVencampmentsduring COVID-19recovery.”
VehicularHomelessnessinCamperslRVsData
TheGreaterLosAngelesHomelessCount(HomelessCount)providesasnapshotofthenumberof peoplefacinghomelessnessinLosAngelesCounty.Accordingtothefindingsofthe2020Homeless Count,morethan66,000peopleexperiencehomelessnessonanygiven nightintheLosAngeles region(notincludingGlendale,LongBeach,andPasadenaContinuaofCare).Thistotalalso includespeople seekingshelterintents,make-shiftdwellings,andvehicleslikeCampers/RVs.

TheHomelessCount,also referredtoasthe“point-in-timecount,”isledbyLAHSAandgenerally conductedonanannual basis.Reportsfromthe2019and 2020HomelessCount,detailthenumber ofPEHresidinginvehicleswithinLosAngelesCounty.
2 ATTACHMENTII
TableIshowsthenumberofCampers/RVsbeingusedasshelterwithineachSupervisorialDistrict (SD),basedonthe2021districting lines. Overall,thetotalnumberofCampers/RVsincreasedby morethan300(from4,873to5,203)intheLosAngelesCounty ContinuumofCare,withthe most significantincrease(27%)seeninSD2.

LosAngelesCountyCamperslRVs CamperslRVs%Change
SupervisorialDistrict20192020
(SD)*
SD1872979+12%
SD21,5651,985+27%
SD31,167996-15%
SD4425440+4%
SD5844803-5%
GrandTotal4,8735,203+7%
Source:2019 and 2020LosAngelesPoint-in-TimeHomelessCount. *
ThedatainthisreportusesSupervisorialDistrictboundaries
from2021whichwerecreatedin2012afterthe2010Censusandusedthrough 2021,duringthetimeframewhenpresenteddatawas collected.

Tables2and3depict thetop10censustractswiththehighest numberofvehicles,inclusiveof Campers/RVs,accordingtothe 2019 and2020homelesscount,respectively.

Table2.Top10CensusTractswithMostVehicles,LosAncielesContinuumofCare,209 CensusCityCommunityNameSPASDTotalTotal Total Total
TractCarsVansCampersVehicles
IRVs
540902 UnincorporatedWiNowbrook6 2831982184
541001Unincorporated UnincorporatedWestRancho62431479136 Dominguez-Victoria
900102 Unincorporated UnincorporatedHiVista15135118136
543305Compton!Compton/Unincorporated822676497
UnincorporatedRanchoDominguez
532303Commerce Commerce712755688
910002 Unincorporated UnincorporatedLittlerock!15 546978 UnincorporatedPearbiossom
224020LosAngelesFashionDistrict/SouthPark4129152973
(Downtown)/Other
535400 Unincorporated UnincorporatedFlorence-62455665
Firestone—Watts
980014Carson/LosCarson/Wilmington846114764
Angeles
502200SantaFeSpringsSantaFeSprings!7435181063
Unincorporated UnincorporatedWestWhittier
Source:2019LosAngelesPoint-in-TimeHomelessCount
Table1.NumberofVehiclesbySD.LosAnoelesContinuumofCare.2019and2020 3 ATTACHMENTII
Table3.ToD10CensusTractswithMostVehicles.LosAnaelesContinuumofCare.2020 CensusCityCommunityNameSPASDTotalTotalTotal Total
TractCarsVansCampersVehicles
/RV5
540902UnincorporatedWillowbrook6 21020156 186
911001Unincorporated Pearblossom/Liano/Littlerock153137 90158 /JuniperHills/Liano
535400Unincorporated!Florence-Firestone/Watts6292392124 LosAngeles
208402LosAngeles Westlake41383229 99
541001Unincorporated UnincorporatedWest62 21145590
RanchoDominguez—
‘Victoria
541300ComptonCompton6 21320 54 87
900602LancasterLancaster1545151979
900102UnincorporatedHiVista15307477
900103UnincorporatedLakeLosAngeles15376373
273502LosAngelesVenice5 3 754667
Source:2020LosAngelesPoint-in-TimeHomelessCount
Tables4and5depictthetop10censustractswiththemostestimatedpeoplelivinginvehicles, inclusiveofCampers/RVs,accordingtothe2019and2020HomelessCount,respectively.

Additionally,AppendixIofthisreportprovidesavisualdepictionof2019and2020hotspotsof PEHwhoarelivinginvehicles,inclusiveofCampers/RV5.

Since the2021HomelessCountwaspostponedduetohealthconcernscausedbytheCOVID 19pandemic,the2020HomelessCountdataisthemostcurrentdataavailable.However,the point-in-timecountresumedthisyearandwasconductedat theendofFebruary 2022.Data collectedinthe2022HomelessCountwillbeavailablelateSummer/earlyFall.Oncethedata becomesavailable, potentialchangesinCamper/RVlocationsand volume canbedetermined.

Table4.Top10CensusTractswithMostEstimatedPersonsinVehicles,LosAngelesContinuumof Care,2019
CensusCityCommunityNameSPASDEstimatedEstimatedEstimatedEstimated TractPersonsinPersonsinPersonsinTotal
CarsVansCampers/Personsin
RVsVehicles
540902 Unincorporated UnincorporatedWest6211426151291
RanchoDominguez-
Victoria
541001Unincorporated UnincorporatedWest625919146224
RanchoDominguez-
Victoria
900102Unincorporated UnincorporatedHiVista15148179201
543305Compton!Compton/825112128191
UnincorporatedUnincorporatedRancho
Dominguez
532303CommerceCommerce71367104 147
980014Carson/Carson/Wilmington8412 1994 125
LosAngeles
224020LosAngeles FashionDistrictlSouth41412657124
Park(Downtown)/Other
4 ATTACHMENTII
910002Unincorporated UnincorporatedLittlerockl15 56105116 Unincorporated
Pearbiossom
535400 Unincorporated UnincorporatedFlorence-6257103116 Firestone
121102 LosAngelesShadowHills/SunValley232386898
Source:2019LosAngelesPoint-in-TimeHomelessCount
Table5.Top10CensusTractswithMostEstimatedPersonsinVehicles,LosAngelesContinuumof Care,2020
CensusCityCommunityNameSPASDEstimated EstimatedEstimatedEstimated TractPersonsinPersonsinPersonsinTotal
Cars VansCampers! Personsin
RV5Vehicles
911001UnincorporatedPearblossom/Llano/Litt156055197312
lerock/ Juniper
Hills/Llano
540902UnincorporatedWillowbrook621434249297
535400Unincorporated!Florence-621339147198
LosAngelesFirestone/Watts
900102UnincorporatedHiVista1560162167
208402LosAngelesWestlake41575741155
900103UnincorporatedLakeLosAngeles15610138154
900602Lancaster Lancaster1 5872242151
541001UnincorporatedRosewood/’East62292488141
6ardena
541300Compton Compton62183486138
900806 LancasterLancaster15682135124
Source:2020LosAngelesPoint-in-TimeHomelessCount
IllegallyObtainedRVsandCosttoTow/Dismantle
TheCEO-HI,incollaborationwiththe DepartmentofPublicWorks(DPW),LAHSAandLASD HomelessOutreachServicesTeams(HOST),andtheVehicularHomelessnessOutreach Program(VHOP)teamatSt.JosephCenter,workedtocompileinformationonillegally obtainedCampers/RV5andidentifycoststotowanddismantlethem.

Generally,outreachworkersconductengagementinameaningful,service-ledmannertoPEH.

OutreachtoCamper/RVinhabitantsrequiresanevenmorestrategicoutreachapproach,as thisvulnerablepopulationoftendo notconsiderthemselveshomeless.Thevehicleitself providesanadditionalbarrierthatcanthwartdirectengagementefforts.Sinceoutreachstaff aremorefocusedontheengagementandconnectiontoservices,minimalvehiculardatais recorded.Inaddition,thesevereconditionofthesevehiclesmakesitdifficulttolocate identifyinginformation.VehicleIdentificationNumbers(VIN)arehardtoreadandareoften scratchedout.AccordingtoVHOP,ofthe224Campers/RV5encounteredbytheiroutreach teams,onlyabout10%hadlicenseplates/currentregistration,andtheremaining90%had missingplatesorexpiredregistration.

TheresimplyisnorobustdatasystemtocaptureCampers/RV5thatareillegallyobtained.

However,theVHOPprogram,whichoperatessolelywithinSD2,providestargetedoutreach toPEHlivingintheirvehicles.ThisregionoftheCountyalsoexperiencessomeofthehighest 5 ATTACHMENTII
numbersofpeoplelivinginCampers/RV5,accordingtothecensustractdataintables4and5 above.InFiscalYear2020-21,VHOPreportedthatmorethan60Campers/RVsweredisposed of.

Tables6illustratestheestimatedcostsassociatedwithdisposingofaCamper/RVby dismantling.Thiscostcanvarydependingonthesize andconditionofthevehicle.According toinformationprovidedbyVHOP,itcostsanaverageof$500todismantleaCamper/RV.

DuringFY2020-21,basedonSt.Joseph’sexperienceconductingoutreachtoRVdwellersas partofVHOP,ininstanceswhereRVdwellerswerewillingtoleavetheirRV,St.Joseph’s spent anaverageof$455todismantle theRV.

Generally,DPWpaysforthecostassociatedwithdismantlingandconducting largerRVclean upswhenRVsmustbemovedaspartofaroadconstructionactivityortoaddressrightofway issues.Itcan costaslittleas$200todisposeofitemsliketrailers;itcancostupwardof thousandsofdollarsforbiggercleanups,suchasremovingburnedRVsorbusesfilledwith trash.Dependingonthe sizeandseverityofthevehicle,thecostcanrangebetween$5,000 to$9,000todismantleRV’s.Forexample,apartiallyburned Camper/RVcouldcost approximately$5,000forahazardous wastecontractortoproperlypreparethevehicletobe dismantled.

Table7providesestimatedtowandstorageservicesrates,accordingtotheLASDtowing contract.ThecosttotowaCamper/RVwillvarydependingonthelength,size,andcondition.

VHOPworksincollaborationtoidentifyRVsandcoordinatewithtowcompanies.

Campers/RV5areusuallyredtaggedbyLASDatleast72hoursinadvance,beforethevehicle istowed.DPWalsoworkstoremovetrash/bulky itemsaroundthevehicleandstore personal items.IncoordinationwithpartnersfromLASD,LAHSAandtheVHOPteam,CEO-HIisfurther exploringwaystocapturedataonRVsinacentralizedmanneracrosstheCounty.Options beingconsideredincludeaddingCamper/RVinformationintotheHomelessManagement InformationSystem(HMIS)duringengagementefforts.

Table6.EstimatedCosttoDismantleanRV
ConditionofCamperlRVAverageCosttoDismantleanRV
AverageorNormalConditionApproximately$500
Burned,Hazardous,DilapidatedCondition$5000to$9000
Table7.TowingandStorageRates,perLASDTowMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU) Tow&StorageChargeEstimatedCost
HeavyDutyTowing(withnospecial$273forthefirsthourorfractionthereof,foraheavy-dutytowunit, preparationfortowing)$136.50foreachadditionalhalf-hourorfractionthereofoverthefirst hour,$68.25anhourorfractionthereofforeachextramanrequired.

HeavyDutyTowing(requiresspecial$400anhourorfractionthereofforaheavy-dutyunit,$200perhour equipmentandpreparingpriortoforeachadditionalheavy-dutytowunit;and$200foreachadditional towing)half-hourorfractionthereofoverthefirsthour;$100anhouror fractionthereofmaybechargedforeachadditionalmanrequired.

Fiftypercentadditionalmaybechargedwhenthedisabledtruck
carriesadangerouscargoofinflammables,corrosives,explosives, orliquidgas.

Storagefortrucks,boats,andhouseRatesshallbe$44forthefirst24-hourperiodand$44foreachday trailersoveronetonandlessthan20thereafter
feet
6 ATTACHMENTII
Storagefortrucks,boats,andhouseRatesshallbe$51forthefirst24-hourperiodand$51foreachday trailers overone-tonandmorethan20thereafter
feet
CriminalActivityInorAroundRVEncampments
TheCEO-HI,incollaborationwiththeLASD,andtheVHOPteamfromSt.Joseph’sCenter, identifiedhotspotareasinoraroundRVencampmentswherewithinthepast24monthsan increaseincrimehasbeendocumentedorincreasedcriminalactivityhasbeenreported.Itis importanttonotethatthesecriminalstatisticsdo notnecessarilyindicatethat the crimesbeing committedaredirectlyrelatedtothepresenceofRVencampments.Additionally,insituations wherecrimeshavebeencommittedinoraroundRVencampments,itisimportanttonotethat PEHareoftenvictimsofcriminalactivitiesthemselves.

ThedatafoundinAppendixIIprovidesthecrimestatisticsonCamper/RVencampmentswithin SDIandSD2.Inaddition,SD 2’sVHOPteamwasabletoprovidespecificlocationsofRV encampmentsbecauseoftheiruniqueroleprovidingoutreachtopeopleexperiencing vehicular homelessnessinSD2.ThefirstpartoftheAppendixIIreportprovidescriminalstatisticson RVencampmentshotspotswithinSD2,asidentifiedbytheStJoseph’sVHOPteam.The datashowsanoverallincreaseincrimeinoraroundRVencampmentsintheCarson,Century, andComptonSheriffstations.

ThesecondpartoftheAppendixIIreportprovidescrimestatisticsinoraroundRV encampmentslocatedwithinSD1.TheselocationswereidentifiedusingtheinternalLos AngelesHomeless EncampmentAutomatedRequestSubmission(HEARS)systemwhich captureshomelessencampmentdatathatmeettherequirementsofLACountywide EncampmentProtocol (CEP),sinceitslaunchinAugust2021. TheCEPgenerallyapplies wherefive(5)ormorePEHhavebeenidentifiedinunincorporatedareasofLACounty,County parks,CountyDPWproperties,andcitieswhereLASDisthecontractedlawenforcement agency.LASDandLAHSAHOSTarespeciallytrainedLASDdeputiesandLAHSAOutreach Workerswhoutilizeaco-responsivemodeltorespondtoallencampmentrequeststhat meet therequirementsoftheCEP.

TheLASDHOSTpatrolsasignificantportionofLACounty’shomeless encampments.The compilationofcriminalstatisticsrequiredthecomplexcoordinationwithmanySheriffstations acrosstheCounty.Therefore,thescopeofthereportinAppendixIIwaslimitedtoSD1and SD2,astheHEARSsystemshowedthesetwoSDsasgeneratingthemostRVrequestsand havingthelargestincreaseinvehicularhomelessnessin2020,ascomparedtothe2019 HomelessCount.

Furtheranalysisisrequiredtodevelopabetterunderstandingofthepossiblecriminalactivity atorneartheidentifiedRVencampmentswherecrimehasincreased.LASDHOST recommendsadditionalresourcesbeallocatedtosupportanincreaseindeputiestoallowfor a morethoroughinvestigationintoconnections betweencriminalenterprisesandRV encampments.
7 ATTACHMENTII
RVEncampmentHotSpotAreasNearSchools
TheCEO-HI,incollaborationwiththeDPW,identifiedhotspotRVencampmentareaswithin 500feetofschoolsusingtheHEARSsystem.TheHEARSsystem’sfilteringfunctionwas utilizedtoidentifyapprovedorcompletedCEPrequests,asofJune2022,thatincludedRVs, campers,ortrailers.UsingthisfilteredlistandthelistofschoolsfromtheCaliforniaDepartment ofEducation,abufferofapproved/completedrequestswithin500feetofaschool parcelwas performedtoidentifyifanyRVencampmentsfellwithintheseparameters.Whiletheremay beadditionalencampmentswithin500feetofaschool parcel,homelessencampmentrequests thatarependingwerenotincludedbecausethey havenotreceivedanassessmenttoverify theexistenceoftheRVencampment.

Thisanalysisresultedintheidentificationofapproximately4RVencampmentsthatwerewithin 500feetofaschoolparcel(seeTable8).However,adeeperreviewofthese4RV encampmentsrevealed thatonly1or2RVswerepresentattheencampments,whichhaveall sincebeenresolved.Basedonthisdata,andrecentexperienceexploringencampments identifiedbyLosAngelesUnifiedSchoolDistrict,thereisnodataorinformationthatsupports theconcern thatRVencampmentshaveorareformingnearschoollocations.

Despitethis,CEO-HIisawareofthesensitiveandvulnerablenatureofhomeless encampmentsnearschools.TheApril19,2022,BoardMotion-AddressingRecreational VehicleEncampmentsInUnincorporatedCounty(AgendaItem#20),directedCEO-HIto reviewtheCEPtoassessandmakerecommendationsrelatedtoprotocolspecifictoRVs.As partofthiseffort,protocolconsiderationstoaddressRVencampmentsnearschoolswillbe explored.

TABLE8.LACHEARSRVEncampmentsWithin500ftofSchools
RVEncampmentLocationSchoolWithin500ft.Outcome
Alleyacross2620E.133rd(N/ofAddress)andJeffersonElementarySchoolRequestResolved runsEasttoWestacrossfrom2508E.133rdSt.

NorthsideMarengoStreetbetweenCityHarrisonElementaryschoolRVrelocatedornotpresent TerraceDrandWestofDitmanAye,nearafteroutreach conducted City/Countyboundaryline
6000S.WilmingtonAv.Randolphto60thStLillianStreetElementaryRequestResolved School
117NTownsendAye,justnorthof1stStreet.AllianceMorganMcKinzieRequestResolved HighSchool
Thisareawasintentionallyleftblank
8 ATTACHMENTII
*GreenandPurplefiguresrepresentCEPwhereRVswerepresentthathavebeenapprovedorcompletedaccording toHEARSsystem(asofJune2022).

RVEncampmentsIdentifiedinHEARS
9 RVEncampmentswithin500feetofaschool.

ATTACHMENTII
Legend
SupervisonalApprovedRV
lS.tr,rt(7071)•W,thln
LACounty500Feetof8
SchoolsSchool003075I5V..
10 Themapsbelowandtothe
leftshow anenhanced
imageofthe4
encampmentsidentified
within500feetofaschool.

Thenumbersonthemap
displaytheSDwherethe
RVencampmentislocated.
(AsofJune2022)
••..
••$ •.•
•.•%
•.
•C •..

C••
. .

C
C•
•
C.
)
•e•
•
.,
C
C’•I.•
••I__9•.C
•C
•C4••••
••I•
•.•%Cr’•
•‘4
C•••
••C
•i—
7C
C..

C7•:.••
•.L•
,.•___C.C
m•••••
••
..‘—_.f——_çC
,••.C.,
•:ij
2 C,
•
.. .

C
.
•
C•
Legend
SupevsorlalLACounty
DIstricts(2021)Schools
AppovedRV
RequestsWithin
500Feetofa
School
0001,1503M,h,
.1—i

ATTACHMENTII
Inventoryof ParkingRestrictionsatHotSpotRVEncampments
TheCEO-HI,incollaborationwithDPW,developedaninventoryofparkingrestrictions currentlyinplaceatRV‘hotspots”acrossLACountycommunities.UtilizingtheLACounty HEARSsystem,alistofhomelessencampmentswasfilteredtoonlyincludeencampments withCamper/RVsandtrailers.TheRVencampmentsidentifiedthroughthisprocesswerethen cross-referencedwithanotherDPWsystemthatmaintainslocationsofparkingrestrictions.

AppendixIIIprovidesthelistofRV“hotspots”,includingpertinentinformationofstreet addresseswheretheencampmentsarelocated, andtheparkingregulationsthatcorrespond tothem.Italso providesavisualdepictionofthecuratedlistofRV“hotspots”andparking regulations.

AppendixIVprovidesfurtherdetailfromDPWontheirassessmentofparkingenforcement effortsandresourcesneededtoimprovethem.DPWhighlightstheimpacttheCOVID-19 pandemichashadonparkingenforcement.Likemanyotherjurisdictionsstatewide,therehas beenatemporarypauseontheenforcementofparkingregulationsinLACountyduringthe pandemic.

TheCEO-HIsupportstherecommendationsputforthinAppendixIVtoprovideaholistic approachinaddressingPEHlivinginRVs.Whileparkingenforcementisatooltoaddressing RVencampments,itshouldbethelaststepinaprotocolthatinvolvestargetedandcontinuous outreachandcross-agencycollaborationtoconnectRVdwellerstotheresourcesneededto transitionpeopleinRVsintoamorepermanenthousingsolution.

PreventResellofHazardousRVs
TheCEO-HI,incollaborationwith LASDHOST,reviewedasamplingofLASD’scontractsfor towingandstorageservicesinLosAngelesCounty.LASDoverseestowingthatmayoccuras partofaCEPwithintheirpatroljurisdiction.Throughthisreview,itwasfoundthatthereisno language/protocol thatprovidesguidanceonwhatwillhappentoaRVifitgoesunclaimedby theregisteredowner,noranyrequirednoticetoLASDontheoutcome.Thislackofdirection leavesthetowvendor opentoresellavehicleonceitgoesunclaimed,whichoftenhappensto makethemselveswholeforanystorageorotherrelatedfees.

WithinSD2,theVHOPteamfromSt.Joseph’sprovides administrativesupportintowing vehiclesthathavebeenredtaggedbyLASDHOSTduringhomelessencampmentoutreach.

TheVHOPteamassistswithcoordinationoftowingwithvendorsauthorizedby LASD.While notcurrentlyinpractice,becauseoftheir uniquepositioninSD2,theVHOPteammaybebest suitedtofollow-uponcompliancemeasurestoensureconfirmationthatdilapidatedvehicles are destroyedornotresold.ImplementationofthisstrategycouldbeexploredinSDwhile alternativeapproachestoensurethathazardousRVsarenotresoldcanbeconsideredinother areasoftheCountythatdonothaveaVHOPteam.CEO-HIandLASDHOSTwillworkwith CountyCounseltoexplorelegallyfeasibleoptionsandpossiblelanguagethat can beadded toLASDcontractswithtowingvendorstopreventtheresellofunclaimedRVs.

Additionally,LASDHOSTiscurrentlyexploringapotentialsolutiontoensurecompliance againsttheliensaleofhazardousRVsCountywide.This couldincludeastipulationthat 11 ATTACHMENTII
requiresacountyrepresentativebepresenttovalidatethedestructionofanRV.Thisadded stepwouldensureprogramintegrityoftheRVdestructionprocess.

ResourcestoSupportaCountywideRVEncampmentProgram
TheCEO-HIwillneedtofurtherexploreresourcestosupportanRVEncampmentProgram.

Fundingoptionsincludeallowablelocal,State,orFederalfundingstreamssuchasMeasureH ortheGovernor’sproposed$500milliongrantfundingtohelpcommunitiesthroughoutthe Statewithencampmentresolution.Additionally,incollaborationwithpartners,thefollowing existingresourcescouldbededicatedtoaddressingRVencampments:

I.VacantCountyParcels
County-ownedpropertiescouldbeusedforaRVsafeparkingsite.TheCEOisexploring apreliminarylistofpropertiesthatcouldbeusedaspotentialRVsafeparkingsites.InLA County,RVsafeparkingsiteshavebeenpreviouslyestablished;however,someofthe challengesthatwereidentifiedinoperating themincludethehighcosttoset-upand maintainthisformofinterimhousing,and thelimitedhoursofoperation.Tobemore effective,anysafeparkingestablishedforRVswouldneedtobe24-houroperationsand havetherequired hookupstosustainanRV(wastewater,electricity,propane).

Additionally,casemanagement/supportiveservicesandsitesecuritywouldbenecessary.

CEO-HIpreviouslyassistedindevelopingtwotrailersafeparkingprogramsknownas“Safe Landing.”SafeLandingwaspartofaStateprogramthatprovidedfreetrailerstolocal jurisdictionstoserveasinterimshelterforfamilies.Thiseffortincludedthesetupof approximately20newtrailersattwositeswithinSD2.Table9belowdepictsanestimate ofthecoststoset-upandoperatethetwo24-hourRVSafeLandingPrograms.

AnotherconsiderationwhencreatingRVsafeparkingisthatmanyRVscurrentlybeingused asdwellingsaredilapidatedanddonothavefunctioningsystemsthatareabletoconnect toelectricalorsewerservices.Assuch,thiscouldresultinadditionalcostsasthebelow estimatesarebasedonnew,fullyfunctioningRVs.

TABLE9.IDENTIFIEDITEMSANDCOSTSESTIMATESTODEVELOPRVSAFELANDINGPROGRAM BroadwayTrailer(St.Joseph’sCenter)andExpositionTrailer(Special Servicesfor Groups)EstimatedCostSummaryper20RVs
LineItemFYI9-20Total(5months)FY2O-21(12months)
ProgramOperations$211,200$584,000
RVTechnician$62,500$150,000
SecurityServices$180,000$432,000
PropaneServices$90,000$216,000
SewerServices$5,800$13,920
TrashServices$5,100$61,200
WaterandPower
Services$82,000$196,800
EstimatedTotal$636,600$1,653,920
12 ATTACHMENTII
Anotherconsiderationthat wasidentifiedthroughdiscussionswithoutreachworkersand homelessserviceprovidersinthefieldisthatPEHarehesitanttogiveuptheirRVfora housingoptionthatisnotpermanenthousing.Anincentivetoencouragepeopleto transitionfromRVsintointerimhousingwouldbetoallowPEHtoretaintheirRVand provideastoragelocationfortheRV untiltheyreceivepermanenthousing.TheRVdweller wouldbeinformedthat they have theoptiontoretrieve theirRVatanytimeshouldthey decidetoleaveinterimhousing;however,uponenteringpermanenthousing,theRVdweller wouldallowtheRVtobedisposedof.

IftheBoardprovides furtherdirectiontomoveforwardwithconsiderationofCounty-owned RVstorageyardsorfurtherexplorationintoexistingcommunitystoragelocations,CEO-HI willcoordinatewithallkeypartnersintheRVWorkgroup(HOST,LAHSA,DPH,St.

Joseph’sVHOPteam),CEO-MasterPlanningDivision,andCountyCounseltoconduct furtherresearchandprovidemore specificrecommendationstodevelopthisprogrammatic structure.

2.LeveragingExistingHousingResources
Housingisanessentialresource neededtosupportthetransitionofPEHwhoarelivingin RVsintomoresustainableandsaferhousing solutions.TheCountyhasmadesignificant investmentsininterimandpermanenthousing,andthenumberofbedsandunitsis continuingtoincrease.AspartoftheRVProtocol,CEO-HIwillestablishareferralpathway toreferRVdwellersintointerimhousingprograms.Inaddition,outreachstaffandinterim housing providerswillenterRVdwellersintotheCoordinatedEntrySystemtoget connectedtopermanenthousingresources.

3.PublicHealthGuidance
EngagementwithRVsdwellersshouldbe ahumanservicesledeffort,withcompassionto thoseexperiencinghomelessnesswhoarelivinginRVs.Theremaybealackof understandingoftheseverehealthandsafetyconditionslivinginRV5withouttheproper connectionspresents.

Assuch,an importantnewresourcethatcouldbeleveragedtosupportthe developmentof aCountywideRVencampmentprogramwouldbeeducationaloutreachmaterials.CEO,in coordinationwithDPH,andoutreachworkers,hasconductedresearchtodevelop educationalmaterialstoprovidePublicHealthguidanceforpeoplelivinginRVs.The materialswillhighlightPublicHealthguidanceonproperusesofRVwater,disposalof wastewater,andwarnofhealthandsafetyhazardsofnotfollowingsuchguidance.Adraft flyerisindevelopmentandbeingfurthervettedamongpartnerstofinalizeandshapethe messagingoftheflyer.
13 ATTACHMENTII

4.Outreach
a.LASDandLAHSAHOST
HOSTisuniqueco-responsemodelthatconsistsofspeciallytrainedLASDdeputies andmembersoftheLAHSAhomelessengagementteam(HET),whorespondtogether toassistPEH.ThishighlytrainedteamcoordinatestoresolveallCountywidehomeless encampmentprotocolsoverseenbyCEO-HI.AlthoughtheCountywideencampment protocolprimarilyfocusesonstreet-basedhomeless encampmentsoffiveor morePEH inCountyjurisdiction,HOSThas,onoccasion,successfullyengagedwithRVdwellers.

AHOSTeffortfocusedsolelyonRVencampmentswouldrequireacommitmentof additionalfundingtosupportadditionalHOSTpersonnel,asfurtherdescribedin AppendixV.TheCEO-HIrecommendsincorporatingtheuseofHOSTintotheRV encampmentpilotprogramwithinSD2toprovideinsighttotheresourcesthatwillbe neededtoexpandthisprogramcountywide.
b.St.JosephCenterVHOP
TheSt.Joseph’sVHOPteamisaspecialunitthatconductsoutreachtopeople experiencingvehicularhomelessnessinSD2.Thisprogramhasbeenoperatinginthis capacityandhasextensiveknowledgeandexpertisearoundthisspecialpopulation.

BestpracticesidentifiedbytheVHOPteamshouldbeconsideredforintegrationinto any solutionsmovingforward.

5.MobileDisposalServices
Asmentionedabove,PEHlivinginRVsoftendonotconsiderthemselveshomeless.This presentsachallengetooutreachworkerswhentryingtoengagepeoplelivinginRVs.A helpfultoolthathasbeenusedtoinitiateengagementwithRVdwellershasbeentheuse ofincentives,suchasmobiledisposalservices.Thisisaresourcethatcouldbeprovided byDPWcrewsorcontractedtoavendor.Thecostofprovidingmobilesewagepumping servicesvarybyareabutrangefrom$45-$320perservice.

Afterreviewofthepotentialnewandexistingresources,discussionswithhomelessservice systemexperts,andpriorrecommendations,theCEO-HIrecommendsthatapilotRV encampmentprogrambedevelopedandimplementedthatleveragestheworkoftheSt.

Joseph’sVHOPteams,enhancingtheircurrenteffortstoinformwhatisneededfora CountywideRVprogram.ThispilotshouldtakeplaceinSD2,whereanestablishedvehicular outreachmodelisalreadyinexistencewiththeVHOPteam.

WithBoarddirectiononthisrecommendation,theCEO-HIwillworkwithpartnerstoimplement thepilot,primarilyutilizingtheSt.Joseph’sVHOPteam,unlessadditionalresourcesare identifiedtosupportHOSTinvolvement.
14 ATTACHMENTII
BestPractices Acrossthe StateRegardingSustainableSolutionstoAssistPEHliving inRV5
TheCEO-HIconductedextensiveresearchacrosstheStatetoidentifybestpracticesand sustainablesolutionstoassistPEHlivinginRVs.Avirtualsurveywasdevelopedtoobtaina betterunderstandingofsolutionsbeingconsideredorimplementedtoaddressRVsbeingused asshelter.Tocasta widenettovariousmunicipalitiesandagenciesthatservePEH,LAHSA andtheHubforUrbanInitiatives-HousingandHomelessStrategiesforCaliforniaassisted withthe surveydistributiontomorethan20neighboringContinuaofCare(C0C)acrossthe State.Althoughresponsestothesurvey werelimited,informationwascollectedthatreaffirmed thebestpracticesandrecommendationsprovidedinpriorreportsbyCEO-HIandotherCounty departmentsonsustainablesolutionstoassisthomelesspeoplelivinginRVs.

Forexample,onejurisdiction highlightedtheuseofasafeRVparkingprogramasabest practicetoassistthepopulationofPEHlivinginRVs.TheirsafeRVparkingprogramincluded connectiontohomelessservices,accesstohousingresources,andovernightRVparking.

Althoughthelotwasonlyavailabletoguestsforovernightaccess,theprogramprovided informationondaytimeparkinglocationsthatRVdwellerscoulduse.Othernotable engagementcomponentsoftheirsafeRVparkingprogramincludedincentivessuchasgift cardsforfuel,freeseptictankdumpingandaccesstopotablewater.

Feedbackonchallenges encounteredduringtheoperationofasafeRVparkingprogramwere alsoprovided.IssuesrelatedtoRVconditions,RVbreakdownsandrepairs, andfuelexpenses wereallhighlightedashurdlesthat havebeenencounteredwhileadministeringaRVsafe parkingprogram.

Inadditiontothesurvey,preliminaryresearchwasalsoconductedtoobtainadeeper knowledgeofsustainablesolutionsbeingconsideredbyotherCoCsacrosstheState.This researchindicatedthatsomemunicipalitieswere consideringimplementingthefollowing practices:
•UseofparkingregulationstoenforcelawsrestrictingpeoplelivinginRVs •Partneringwithothermunicipalities(i.e.,Metro,Airport) toexpandavailabilityof overnightsafeRVparkingsites
•CollaborationwithprivateentitiestodevelopanRVpark
Afterthoroughreviewofbestpracticesandmethodsbeingconsideredbyotherjurisdictions acrossthestate,itappearsthatLACountyhaspreviouslyidentifiedthesamebestpractices andsustainablesolutionsforPEHlivinginRV5.Unfortunately,therewasnotanybestpractice identifiedthathasnotbeenpreviouslyconsideredinLACounty.

AdditionalDirectivestoAddressSustainableSolutionsforPEHLivinginRVs Inadditiontothedirectivesaddressedabove,theJanuary11,2022,Boardmotionprovided furtherdirectivestoDPW,DPH,LASD,and CEO-RealEstate(CEO-RED).Thechartbelow providesanupdateonprogressmadetoaddresseachdirective.
15 ATTACHMENTII
DirectiveSubjectStatusUpdate
No.

IDPWtoreportonbestpracticesDPW’sresponsetothis directiveprovidedin fromacrossthestatethatAppendixIV.
leverageparkingregulationsto
reducere-populationofRVsin
hotspotareasandaround
schools.

CEO-REDhascompiledapreliminarylistofvacant
parcelsownedbytheCountythatcouldfunctionas
sitesforRVsafeparking.Theselocationsinclude
theexplorationofProbationcampsthathavesince
closed.There wereverylimitedsitesavailableinthe
SupervisorialDistrictrecommendedfortheRV
encampmentprogrampilot.Furtherresearchand
vettingisneededtodetermineaviablelistof
potentialRVparkinglocations.CEOwillcontinue
reviewingthecompiledlist,inpartnershipwiththe
BoardOfficesandLAHSA,todetermine feasible
_____________________________
sites.

LASDtoreportbackonthebestLASDconductedextensivestatewideresearchfor practicesfromacrosstheStatebestpracticesonoutreachstrategiesandparking regardingoutreachstrategiesenforcementfor PEHthatarelivinginRVs.LASD andparkingenforcementforresponsetothisdirectiveisprovidedinAppendixV.

PEHlivinginRVsandidentify
theresourcesnecessaryto
implementthebestpractices.

DPH toreportbackonbestDPH’sresponsetothis directiveisattachedin practicesfromacrosstheStateAppendixVI.
regardingthesustainable
solutionsforproper disposalof
wastetoassistPEHlivingin
RVs,includingmobiledisposalof
RVwaste.
__________________________________
2CEO-REDtoidentifyCounty
parcelsthatcanbeusedasoff
siteparkinglocationstoassist
PEHlivinginRVswithineach
SupervisorialDistrict.
16 Appendices
AppendixI-MapofVehicleEncampmentHotSpots(LAHSAHomelessCount) AppendixII-CriminalStatisticsDataNearRVEncampmentsInSupervisorialDistrict1&2 AppendixIll-ParkingRegulations forEncampmentsinLACounty andMaps DepictingOverlap of RestrictionsandRVEncampments
AppendixIV-DepartmentofPublicWorksResponsetoBoardMotion AppendixV-LosAngelesSheriffsDepartmentResponsetoBoardMotion AppendixVI-DepartmentofPublicHealthResponsetoBoardMotion AppendixI
-Mapof2019Point-In-TimeHomelessCountDataatCensus
TractLevelofPeopleExperiencingHomelessnessLivingin
Vehicles
-Mapof2020Point-In-TimeHomelessCountDataatCensus
TractLevelofPeopleExperiencingHomelessnessLivingin
Vehicles

PERSONSEXPERIENCINGHOMELESSNESS(PEH)INVEHICLES
2019Point-In-TimeHomeless CountDataatCensusTractLevel

0.1-2.6

2.6-5.1

5.1-7.9

7.9-11.6

16.4-23.7

17.6-25.2

23.7-34.4

34.4-50.8

50.8-87.6

87.6-487.9
LACountySupervisorDistricts
OtherContinuumofCare
,.-‘--.._t
TotalNo.ofPENinVehicles(perSqMile)
Personsexperiencinghomelessness(PEH)includethoselivingincars,vans,or recreationalvehicles/campers.Thedatarepresentedinthe mapwascollectedduringthe 2020Point-In-TimeHomelessCountandisrepresentedattheCensusTractlevel.Census Tractsarestatisticalsubdivisionsofacountyorstatisticallyequivalententitycreatedbythe USCensusBureau.OnlyCensusTractswithintheboundariesoftheLACountyContinuum ofCare(C0C)containdata.OtherCoCswithinLACounty includeGlendale,LongBeach, andPasadena.LACounty BoardofSupervisorDistrictsinthismap wereinplaceat the timeofthe 2020Point-In-TimeHomelessCount.NewSupervisorDistrictswereapprovedin 2021andwentintoeffectJanuary1st,2022.

LASA

METHODOLOGY
Thedatarepresentedinthemapwascollectedduringthe2019 Point-In-TimeHomeless Count andisrepresentedattheCensusTractlevel.DuringthePoint-In-TimeHomeless Count,volunteersconductaphysicalcountofPEHinCars,Vans,and RV/Campers,which areconvertedintoestimatetotalnumberofpeoplebasedonthemethodologydescribed here.Thedataisthenrepresentedonthe mapand groupedinto10classesbasedonthe quantileclassificationmethod.Quantileclassificationisadataclassificationmethodthat distributesasetofvaluesintogroupsthatcontainanequalnumberofvalues.Catalina IslandisomittedfrommapasnovehicularPEHwasfound.

PERSONSEXPERIENCINGHOMELESSNESS(PEH)INVEHICLES
2020Point-In-TimeHomelessCountDataatCensusTractLevel
Moorpaknu____
ViIey
Thousand
Oaks
:
\
TotalNo.ofPEHinVehicles(perSqMile)
Eo

0.1-3.2

3.2.55 5.5-7.9
—7.9-12.3

12.3-17.6

17.6-25,2

25.2-35.6

35.6-54.6

54.6-92.3

92.3-1176.5
LACountySupervisorDislricts
Other ContinuumofCare
Personsexperiencinghomelessness(PEH)includethoselivinginCars,vans,or recreationalvehicles/campers.Thedatarepresentedinthe mapwascollectedduringthe 2020Point-In-TimeHomelessCountandisrepresentedattheCensusTractlevel.Census Tractsarestatisticalsubdivisionsofacountyorstatisticallyequivalententitycreatedbythe USCensusBureau.OnlyCensusTractswithintheboundariesoftheLACountyContinuum ofCare(C0C)containdata.OtherCoCswithinLACounty includeGlendale.LongBeach, andPasadena.LACounty BoardofSupervisorDistrictsinthismapwereinplaceatthe timeofthe 2020Point-In-TimeHomelessCount.NewSupervisorDistrictswereapprovedin 2021andwentintoeffectJanuary1st,2022.

METHODOLOGY
Thedatarepresentedinthe mapwascollectedduringthe2020 Point-In-TimeHomeless CountandisrepresentedattheCensusTractlevel.DuringthePoint-In-TimeHomeless Count,volunteersconductaphysicalcountofPEHinCars,Vans,and RV/Campers,which areconvertedintoestimatetotalnumberofpeoplebasedonthemethodologydescribed here. Thedataisthenrepresentedonthe mapandgroupedinto10classesbasedonthe quantileclassificationmethod. Quanlileclassificationisadataclassification method that distributesasetofvaluesintogroups thatcontainanequalnumberofvalues.CatalinaIsland isomittedfrommapasnovehicularPEHwasfound.

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAMAppendixII
InreviewingcrimeratesintheSheriff’sDepartment territory,thereisanoverallincrease. Compton, Norwalk,SanDimasandSouthLosAngelesStations aretheonlystationsreportingminimaldecreasesin reportedcrimes;allotherstationsshowanincreaseincrimewhen2021iscomparedto2020.

Intheattachedpageswe havebrokendownthePartIcrimeratesintheareasidentifiedbytheSt.

Joseph’soutreachefforts.Withregardstothespecificstationsinvolved,please refertothebelow informationoneachstation’sindividualcrimerates.

CarsonStationshowsanoverallincreaseofPartICrimesof13.22%yearoveryear.GrandTheft Autos increased54.64%forthestationarea,from 690carsstolenin2020to1,067carsstolenin2021.

Propertycrimes overallinCarsonstationareaincreased17.59%lastyear.

Century StationshowsaslightincreaseinPartICrimesof 2.96%yearoveryear.Grand Theft Autos increased23.54%forthestationarea,from1,661 carsstolenin2020to2,052 carsstolenin2021.

ComptonStation showsanoveralldecreaseinPartICrimes;however,Grand TheftAutosincreased

34.03%forthestation area,from1,058 carsstolenin2020to1,418 carsstolenin2021.Thistrend appearstobecontinuingin2022andisreflectedinthe reportedcrimesintheareasidentifiedby St.

Joseph’soutreachefforts.

Page1of122/25/2022
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

CARSON STATION PART I CRIMES
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 vs. 2021
CRIME AREA 2020 2021 PERCENT CHANGE —
Carson 8 F 8 0.00%
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE Unincorporated 2 5 150.00%
Station Total 10 13 30.00%
Carson 21 18 -14.29%
RAPE Unincorporated 6 3 -50.00%
Station Total 27 21 -22.22%
Carson 98 111 13.27%
ROBBERY Unincorporated 31 35 12.90%
Station Total 129 146 13.18%
Carson 265 227 -14.34%
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT Unincorporated 85 56 -34.12%
Station Total 350 283 -1 9.14%
Carson 392 364 -7 14%
VIOLENT CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 124 99 -20 16%
Station Total 516 463 -10 27%
Carson 253 252 -0.40%
BURGLARY Unincorporated 117 113 - -3.42%
Station Total 370 365 -1.35%
Carson 1,262 1,365 8.16%
LARCENY THEFT Unincorporated 411 426 3.65%
Station Total 1,673 1,791 7.05%
Carson 529 766 44.80%
GRAND THEFT AUTO Unincorporated 161 301 86.96%
Station Total 690 1,067 54.64%
Carson 22 24 9.09%
ARSON Unincorporated 13
- r 8 -38.46%
Station Total 35 32 -8.57%
Carson 2066 — 2407 16 51%
PROPERTY CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated
..‘ 702 848 20.80%
Station Total 2,768 3,255 17 59%
Carson 2 458 — 2 771 12 73%
PART I CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 826 947 14.65%
Station Total 3,284 3,718 I 13.22%
Per the FBI Guidelines Homicide, Rape and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident, except Arson which is always counted.

Red depicts +30% increases and green depicts -30% decreases. N/C = Not Calculable Source: LARCIS 5C UCR Data
Report generated on 01/16/22 Page 2 of 12 2/25/2022
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

CENTURY STATION PART I CRIMES
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 vs. 2021
CRIME ARA - 2021 PERCENT CHANGE
Lynwood 4 4 0.00%
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE Unincorporated 26 41 57.69%
Station Total 30 45 50.00%
Lynwood 17 20 17.65%
RAPE Unincorporated 33 47 42.42%
Station Total 50 67 34.00%
Lynwood 157 175 11.46%
ROBBERY Unincorporated 389 306 -21.34%
Station Total 546 481 -11.90%
Lynwood 263 319 21.29%
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT Unincorporated 744 750 0.81%
Station Total 1,007 1,069 6.16%
Lynwood 441 518 17.46%
VIOLENT CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 1,192 I 1,144 I -4.03% Station Total 1,633 1,662 1.78%
Lynwood 102 157 53.92%
BURGLARY Unincorporated 285 208 -27.02%
Station Total 387 365 -5.68%
Lynwood 740 I 677 -8.51%
LARCENY THEFT Unincorporated 1,010 875 -13.37%
Station Total 1,750 1,552 -11.31%
Lynwood 669 963 43.95%
GRAND THEFT AUTO Unincorporated 992 1,089 9.78%
Station Total 1,661 2,052 23.54%
Lynwood 12 11 -8.33%
ARSON Unincorporated 91 56 -38.46%
Station Total 103 67 -34.95%
Lynwood 1,523 1,808 18.71%
PROPERTY CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 2,378 2,228 -6.31% Station Total 3,901 4,036 3.46%
Lynwood 1,964 2,326 18.43%
PART I CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 3,570 3,372 -5.55%
Station Total 5,534 5,698 2.96%
Per the FBI Guidelines Homicide, Rape and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident, except Arson which is always counted.

Red depicts +30% increases and green depicts -30% decreases. N/C = Not Calculable Source: LARCIS 5C UCR Data
Report generated on 01/16/22 Page 3 of 12 2/25/2022
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

COMPTON STATION PART I CRIMES
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 vs. 2021
CRIME AREA - 2021 PERCENICHANGE —
Compton 22 36 63.64%
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE Unincorporated 4 9 125.00%
Station Total 26 45 73.08%
Compton 48 37 -22.92%
RAPE Unincorporated 13 7 I -46.15%
Station Total 61 44 j -27.87%
Compton 284 237 1 -16.55%
ROBBERY Unincorporated 66 59 -10.61%
Station Total 350 296 -15.43%
Compton 774 648 -16.28%
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT Unincorporated 174 153 -12.07%
Station Total 948 801 -1 5.51%
Compton 1,128 958 -15.07%
VIOLENT CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 257 228 -11.28%
Station Total 1,385 1,186 -14.37%
Compton 222 183 -17.57%
BURGLARY Unincorporated 94 57 -39.36%
Station Total 316 240 -24.05%
Compton 1,189 795 -33.14%
LARCENY THEFT Unincorporated 214 145 -32.24%
Station Total 1,403 940 -33.00%
Compton 838 1,092 I 30.31%
GRAND THEFT AUTO Unincorporated 220 326 48.18%
Station Total 1,058 1,418 34.03%
Compton 45 42 -6.67%
ARSON Unincorporated 6 15 150.00%
Station Total 51 57 j 11.76%
Compton 2,294 I 2,112 i -7.93%
PROPERTY CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 534 543 1.69%
Station Total 2,828 2,655 -6.12%
Compton 3,422 3,070 -10.29%
PART I CRIMES TOTAL Unincorporated 791 771 -2.53%
Station Total 4,213 3,841 -8.83%
Per the FBI Guidelines Homicide, Rape and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident, except Arson which is always counted.

Red depicts +30% increases and green depicts -30% decreases. N/C = Not Calculable Source: LARCIS 5C UCR Data
Report generated on 01/16/22 Page 4 of 12 2/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
SiCVHOPHotSpots
EAlondraBlvd
0 0-
S
AthensPark
=—7
WElSegundoBlvd

BROADWAY
IV1I
JohnsonPark
EEl
WillowL
CORRIDOR’
TOTAL:426
El35thSt
UPSCom
Customer
At
Ave
3’
Starbucks
ERosecranSAve
0omptoflB
AlondraBlvd
tore&
Center
GardenaBlvd
flH.*
AlondraBlvd
I
Page5of122/2512022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
RVEncampment-Cornpton
Streets:157thSt,RedondoBeachBlvd,ComptonBlvd,Broadway,MainSt,SanPedroSt, AvalonBlvd
PartICrimes: 2021vs2020
157thSt20212020Difference%Change
Homicide000#DIV/0!
Rape0 00#DIV/0’
Robbery01-1-100.0%
AggravatedAssault14-3-75.0%
ViolentCrimesTotal15-4-80.0%
Burglary2200.0%
LarcenyTheft43133.3%
GrandTheftAuto1129450.0%
Arson000#DIV/0!
PropertyCrimesTotal17710142.9%
PartITotal18 12650.0%
RedondoBeachBlvd20212020Difference%Change
Homicide000#DIV/0!
Rape101#DIV/0!
Robbery12-1-50.0%
AggravatedAssault54125.0%
ViolentCrimesTotal76116.7%
Burglary05-5-100.0%
LarcenyTheft78-1-12.5%
GrandTheftAuto1789112.5%
Arson000#DIV/0!
PropertyCrimesTotal2421314.3%
PartITotal3127414.8%
ComptonBlvd2021 2020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00#DIV/0!
Rape0 00#DIV/0!
Robbery303#DIV/0!
AggravatedAssault2200.0%
ViolentCrimesTotal523150.0%
Burglary211100.0%
LarcenyTheft835166.7%
GrandTheftAuto13013#DIV/0!
Arson101#DIV/0!
PropertyCrimesTotal24420500.0%
PartITotal29623383.3%
Preparedby CPT/CAU2/25/22
DataSource:crimeViewPage6of122/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
RVEncampment-Compton
Streets:157thSt,RedondoBeachBlvd0ComptonBlvd,Broadway,MainSt,SanPedroSt, AvalonBlvd
PartICrimes: 2021vs2020
Broadway20212020Difference%Change
Homicide000#DIV/0!
Rape000#DIV/0!
Robbery12-1-50.0%
AggravatedAssault12-1-50.0%
ViolentCrimesTotal24-2-50.0%
Burglary64250.0%
LarcenyTheft1611545.5%
GrandTheftAuto19514280.0%
Arson000#DIV/0!
PropertyCrimesTotal412021105.0%
PartITotal43 241979.2%
MainSt20212020Difference%Change
Homicide000#DIV/0!
Rape000#DIV/0!
Robbery01-1-100.0%
AggravatedAssault32150.0%
ViolentCrimesTotal3300.0%
Burglary303#DIV/0!
LarcenyTheft945125.0%
GrandTheftAuto812-4-33.3%
Arson000#DIV/0!
PropertyCrimesTotal2016425.0%
Part ITotal23 19 421.1%
SanPedroSt20212020Difference%Change
Homicide000tDlV/0!
Rape000#DIV/0!
Robbery211100.0%
AggravatedAssault23-1-33.3%
ViolentCrimesTotal4400.0%
Burglary56-1-16.7%
LarcenyTheft34-1-25.0%
GrandTheftAuto16313433.3%
Arson32150.0%
PropertyCrimesTotal27151280.0%
PartITotal3119 1263.2%
PreparedbyCPT/CAU2/25/22
DataSource:CrimeViewPage7of122/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
RVEncampment-Compton
Streets:157thSt,RedondoBeachBlvd,ComptonBlvd,Broadway,MainSt,SanPedroSt, AvalonBlvd
PartICrimes:2021vs2020
AvalonBlvd20212020Difference%Change
Homicide01-1-100.0%
Rape000#DIV/0!
Robbery6600.0%
AggravatedAssault1013-3-23.1%
ViolentCrimesTotal1620-4-20.0%
Burglary725250.0%
LarcenyTheft47-3-42.9%
GrandTheftAuto633100.0%
Arson202#DIV/0!
PropertyCrimesTotal1912758.3%
PartITotal353239.4%
PreparedbyCPT/CAU2/25/22
DataSource:CrimeViewPage8of122/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
vi
thldirofLeo
HWodhtogroo
LeonhiWashitooPath
EL?

0. alo0Rocoosoruoof
California-Losdrrgolos..
[c9
92od&MooChild
GoooloprrrnorCooler
AgPaitots9
9’
CocosAutotosoraoflin
CorpSPACoodsAuto-
V
a
-fFoonr000:1. MeatMaruolV
-
Rarnoasr Omamnotal
ALAMEDAtQRRIDQ
TOTAL:77
•.tAloodfAotoParts9
I-
CarlosBraes9
flYg&rrntoo works
92NDST-69
ELACSooth
GatoCarnpus
9 QolonsoorusLosAogolcs
9 BC
ffoor-A-WhoelCuotorn
Whools&Trrosin.-
CaCorartAtrarfrnorrfs9
SouthSafeSolfstorage9
QMlchoa000
Auto
GlassaodParts
ToyotauaarsParts9Ef2od5a
LGCsAu4bGlass
QuoChubEsPoohIa
(CocfnaTwo)
8 R.AtcwCam—
FnErdSt
-9Qit.LionM.tta4
iI
9 Wosfrnrosror ParkPlaoa
soars9
rorrrc
WosboyIPaubroefl
DiocsooFollooshipHall‘4”CaoorbitCbuh9
II!I
I
1y.rt-t
0 .
•eeFI’
t4oodb.tB2odBr
9 NroetySecondStreet
ElonneotarySohoolC
!!
Gogic
I•.-
Irkswatta9
Page9of122/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
m
Homicide202N/C
Rape01-1-100.00%
Robbery47-3-42.86%
AggravatedAssault139444.44%
ViolentCrimesTotal1917211.76%
Burglary2 5-3-60.00%
LarcenyTheft139444.44%
GTA2017317.65%
Arson413300.00%
PropertyCrimesTotal39 32721.88%
Part1Total58 49918.37%
Homicide0 00N/C
Rape0 00N/C
Robbery4 4 00.00%
AggravatedAssault10 17-7-41.18%
ViolentCrimesTotal1421-7-33.33%
Burglary734133.33%
LarcenyTheft5 500.00%
GTA3 300.00%
Arson3 300.00%
PropertyCrimesTotal18 14428.57%
Part1Total3235-3-8.57%
Page10of 122/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
WManvilleSt
9ConcentraUrgentCare
3 0
00 3,
WVictoriaStwApraSt
WMatwilleSt
OceanBlueExpress9

VICTORIACORRIDOR
SantaMonica
SeafoodCompany
PittiihaoSt
Dominguez
Hills9RePligen
C-
Pfc.James
Anderson
MemorlIPark
orUNIVERSITY-8
U-HaulMoving&
StorageofCarson
CansJrQ9wss
KinderMorgano
EDelAmaBlvd
WatsonStationy
WManvilleSt
0 Aorta
Dolores
5’,
HomesteadP1
DominguezRancho
AdobeMuseum
Susana
Dominguez
I
3rdStp
3 0
0 tAbbottsu’St
0 ECalOtOckSI
9 ECashdanSt
Southern
CaliforniaEdison
Si,
3 0
I
MassivePrint9
SVrstaDellaWab
St
2011St
3,1151
4thSt
51031
,
61051
7thSt
GLADWIcK—17EGladwfcks11
MaruieñAmer

RANCHORANQID
DOMINGUEZ25
RanchoPacifica
C’
IndustrialPark
EViaArado
Q
FinancialPartners
CreditUnion
‘I
D
EDelAmoBlvdEDelAmoBlvdEDelAmoBlvdEDelAr
Page11ofl22/25/2022

HOMELESSOUTREACHSERVICESTEAM
Homicide000
Homicide00—0—N/C
Rape00——N/C
Robbery00——N/C
AggravatedAssault00—0—N/C
ViolentCrimesTotal00—0—NIC
Burglary101N/C
LarcenyTheft3-1-33%
GrandTheftAuto— —12200%
Arson— —00N/C
PropertyCrimesTotal64250%
PartiTotal642j5O%
EUniversityDr 20212020DIfference%c
Homicide000N/C
Rape000N/C
Robbery000N/C
AggravatedAssault01-1-100%
ViolentCrimesTotal0I-l-100%
Burglary101N/C
LarcenyTheft2200%
GrandTheftAuto01-1-100%
Arson000N/C
PropertyCrimesTotal3300%
.;GladwickSt20212020Difference
N/C
Rape000N/C
Robbery0——-3-100%
ggravatedAssault0——0N/C
ViolentCrimesTotal03-3-100%
Burglary211100%
LarcenyTheft7— —4133%
GrandTheftAuto22— —14175%
rson0— —0N/C
°ropertyCrimesTotal311219158%
‘artI
Homicide01-1-100%
Rape000N/C
Robbery1100%
AggravatedAssault514400%
ViolentCrimesTotal633100%
Burglary312200%
LarcenyTheft1110110%
GrandlheftAuto121111100%
Arson000N/C
PropertyCrimesTotal261214117%
17113%
Page12of 122/25/2022
RVEncampmentAreas-PartICrimes
#Location20212020Difference%Change
1SaybrookbetweenOlympicBlvdand0
SouthsideDr
2Nextto756SaybooknorthofWhittier202
Blvd.Noncalculable
3MariannaAvebetweenTelegraphand2200%
OlympicBI
4ll7NTownsendAve,justnorthoflst76117%
Street.
5Acrossfrom319NRowanAvesouthof422100%
ECesarEChavezAve.Eastside
Rowan nexttosupermarket.
6KnowlesatRogers01-1-100%
7Acrossfrom4040Whiteside Stin211100%
IndustrialareaofCityTerrace
8BonnieBeachatWhiteside211100%
9FishburnAvebetweenMedfordFowler2 5-3-60%
105456PomonaBlvd.Acrossthestreet.101Noncalculable
11NorthsideMarengoStreetbetweenCity211100%
TerraceDrandWestofDitmanAye,
nearCity/Countyboundaryline.
12PomonaBIfromSadlerAve toAlta Med74375%
buildingwestofHillviewAve
13WhitesideatBonnieBeachP1-cul-de-2 200%
sac
14SouthboundFordAvebetween1stSt23-1-33%
and3rdSt
156RV’sobstructingviewofoncoming0
trafficforpatronsoftheAltaMedfacility.
1615906E.SanBernardinoRd.Covina,000
CA91722InfrontoftheChurchonthe
Irwindale Ave.side.Noncalculable
PrimaryOffense, Part1crimes, 03/14/22
LOCATION1-SaybrookbetweenOlympicBlvdandSouthsideDr,nodataavailable, MONTERYPARKPDarea

NODATAAVAILABLEFROMLASD,MONTEREYPARKPDAREA
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria: PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
1 LOCATION2-Nextto756SaybooknorthofWhittierBlvd.

PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location220212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery101noncalculable
AggravatedAssault011-100%
ViolentCrimesTotal1 100%
Burglary101noncalculable
LarcenyTheft0 00noncalculable
Grand TheftAuto000noncalculable
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal101noncalculable
PartITotal211100%
20212020
‘1
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
I
2 LOCATION3-MariannaAvebetweenTelegraphandOlympicBI
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location320212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery0 00noncalculable
AggravatedAssault0 01noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal0 00noncalculable
Burglary0 00noncalculable
LarcenyTheft1 100%
GrandTheftAuto01-1-100%
Arson0 00noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal12-1-50%
PartITotal12-1-50%
20212020

ILYMPICBLVD
_____________
0 ‘I—
created03/14/22
Source:crimeviewDesktop
criteria:PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
LMPJ&3WD
______________
A64
a
3 LOCATION4-117NTownsendAye,justnorthof1stStreet
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location320212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape0 00noncalculable
Robbery0 00noncalculable
AggravatedAssault0 01noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal000noncalculable
Burglary000noncalculable
LarcenyTheft1100%
GrandTheftAuto01-1-100%
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal12-1-50%
PartITotal1 2-1-50%
20212020
3i
o
//
0 Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeVewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
4 LOCATION5-Acrossfrom319NRowanAvesouthofECesarEChavezAve.East side 2021
Rowannexttosupermarket.

ParICrimes2021vs2020
2020
J

9.-
I
•&.,j,
3/
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
IFFIFFfFFF(F.f
IC
a’::’
-
/_
:_
0:
-
I
FFt,, ,,z/
IF/F/Ar11t1’1’’’’ItFFF/FFF//FI//F/F//F//lI.
/,/...,_F,,
(/FF?F?/F/FFFFF/FFFFIFlIFFIFIFI
/FFFF(FFFFFIFFFFFFFFFFI.?F/I.F
.1/F/FF/F/IFFF/.// F//IFFFIFFF/IFFIIF/IFflF
•I,/FIfIFFlF/FFF1/IF/Ill/t/111IFFIF/F/Fl
/F/IF/1F////F/FF?///F?IIFI?FFF/?/?//F/FFFFFF
:‘-.‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
/1FF/FeF/FFFflIt/F/FFfl
F,,IFI/F/I////F//F/?FFF/FFIIFFIFItFIIFFFI,?F.

FIFt1,??/1/I?//1/F/F/I?/F
I_:,_,,,FF//11/11/11/I/In/I/F,,,,,,
I I IF//Fl?IIIF F/11/II I I/I1IIFI—1F,’I I.‘FI I
/l11471IF/tIFI’FF?/1/F/IIII//lI.’llIFF,.’/1
Location520212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape0 00noncalculable
Robbery101noncalculable
AggravatedAssault202noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal303noncalculable
Burglary000noncalculable
LarcenyTheft101noncalculable
Grand TheftAuto02-2-100%
Arson0 00noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal1 2-1-50%
PartITotal422100%
5 LOCATION6-KnowlesatRogers
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location620212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault0 00noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal000noncalculable
Burglary0 00noncalculable
LarcenyTheft01-1-100%
GrandTheftAuto0 00noncalculable
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal01-1-100%
PartITotal01-1-100%
20212020
i;,’z‘.‘;
i/
f_’A—,1
.,
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
•
—j,.

I
5,’
6 LOCATION7-Acrossfrom4040WhitesideStinIndustrialareaofCityTerrace PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location720212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault101noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal101noncalculable
Burglary101noncalculable
LarcenyTheft0 3-3-100%
GrandTheftAuto000noncalculable
Arson101noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal2 3-1-33%
PartITotal3 300%
2021
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:Primary Offense, PartIcrimes
2020
7 LOCATION8-BonnieBeachatWhiteside
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location820212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape0 00noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault0 00noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal0 00noncalculable
Burglary000noncalculable
LarcenyTheft101noncalculable
Grand TheftAuto000noncalculable
Arson01-1-100%
PropertyCrimeTotal1100%
PartiTotal1 100%
20212020
0 I
-
F
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
8 LOCATION9-FishburnAvebetweenMedfordIFowler
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location920212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault03-3-100%
ViolentCrimesTotal03-3-100%
Burglary0 00noncalculable
LarcenyTheft02-2-100%
GrandTheftAuto202noncalculable
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal2 200%
PartITotal25-3-60%
20212020
r
41 a:!
0 Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeviewDesktop
Criteria: PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
9 LOCATION10—5456PomonaBlvd.Acrossthestreet.

PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location1020212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape0 00noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault000noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal0 00noncalculable
Burglary0 00noncalculable
LarcenyTheft101noncalculable
GrandTheftAuto0 00noncalculable
Arson0 00noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal101noncalculable
PartITotal101noncalculable
20212020
I
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
criteria:PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
I1/
10 LOCATION11-NorthsideMarengoStreetbetweenCityTerraceDrandWestofDitman Aye,nearCity/Countyboundaryline.

PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location1120212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape0 00noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault101noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal101noncalculable
Burglary101noncalculable
LarcenyTheft0 00noncalculable
Grand TheftAuto01-1-100%
Arson000noncalculable
Propert\CrimeTotal1 100%
PartITotal211100%
2021
-
2020
L/)‘
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
11 LOCATION12-PomonaBIfromSadlerAvetoAlta MedbuildingwestofHillviewAve PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location1220212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault101noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal101noncalculable
Burglary211100%
LarcenyTheft422100%
Grand TheftAuto01-1-100%
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal6 4250%
PartITotal7 4375%
2021
•I0
W‘
—
ObNABLVD—-
oC
2020
—%
Z1i.’
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria: PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
12 LOCATION13-WhitesideatBonnieBeachP1-cul-de-sac
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location1320212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault000noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal000noncalculable
Burglary101noncalculable
LarcenyTheft1100%
GrandTheftAuto000noncalculable
Arson01-1-100%
PropertyCrimeTotal2200%
PartITotal2 200%
I;
-
20212020
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
13 LOCATION14-SouthboundFordAvebetween1stStand3rdSt
PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location1420212020Difference%Change
Homicide000noncalculable
Rape0 00noncalculable
Robbery0 00noncalculable
Aggravated Assault1 100%
ViolentCrimesTotal1100%
Burglary000noncalculable
LarcenyTheft01-1-100%
GrandTheftAuto1100%
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal12-1-50%
PartITotal23-1-33%
20212020
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense, PartIcrimes
14 LOCATION15-6RVsobstructingviewofoncomingtrafficforpatronsoftheAitaMed Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
facility.UNABLETODETERMINEEXACTLOCATION
Criteria:PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
I
-I
EastLos
Angeles
College
9 :9
AltaMedPACE
EastLosAngel
CITYTERRACE .LAGEAltaMedMedicaland
DentalGroup-East...EugeneAio’&ur
ObrccjOnPark
ElMercadito9
9I
BOYLEHGHTS-;-
1/ jAltaMedMedical
andDentalGroup...

UAltaMedMedical hiGalleryGroup-Commerce
1Vhq
h.

BNSFRailwayWSc
VMONT
.3?tht—.,f)1j,1j0ItCiadeIOutIts-
15 LOCATION16—15906E.SanBernardinoRd.Covina,CA91722InfrontoftheChurchon theIrwindaleAve.side.

PartICrimes2021vs2020
Location1620212020Difference%Change
Homicide0 00noncalculable
Rape000noncalculable
Robbery000noncalculable
AggravatedAssault000noncalculable
ViolentCrimesTotal000noncalculable
Burglary0 00noncalculable
LarcenyTheft0 00noncalculable
GrandTheftAuto000noncalculable
Arson000noncalculable
PropertyCrimeTotal000noncalculable
PartITotal000noncalculable
20212020
•
ZciII
Created03/14/22
Source:CrimeViewDesktop
Criteria:PrimaryOffense,PartIcrimes
16 AppendixIII

LACHEARSPARKINGREGULATIONSAROUNDRVENCAMPMENTS
21EastUnincorporated MariannaAvebetweenTelegraph MariannaAvefromNbofOlympictoWhittier,Prohibit andOlympicElParkingforStreetSweeping,8A-12P,EastSideThurs,West SideFridays
31EastUnincorporated117NTownsendAye,just northofProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,8A-12P,EastSideWed, 1stStreet.WestSideThursdays
41EastUnincorporatedAcrossfrom319NRowanAvesouthProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,8A-12P, EastSide ofECesarEChavezAve.Eastside Thurs,WestSideWednesdays
Rowannexttosupermarket.
51EastUnincorporatedKnowlesatRogersProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,11A-3P,EastSideTues, WestSideMondays
61MetroUnincorporatedAcrossfrom4040 WhitesideStinProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,11A-3P,NorthSide IndustrialareaofCityTerraceMonday;ProhibitOvernightPaking7p-5aBothSides Everyday
71MetroUnincorporatedBonnie BeachatWhiteside ProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,11A-3P,NorthSide Monday;ProhibitOvernightPaking7p-SaBothSides
Everyday
81MetroUnincorporatedFishburnAvebetweenMedfordProhibit OvernightParking7p-SaBothSidesEveryday Fowler
91EastUnincorporated5456PomonaBlvd.AcrosstheProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,SA-8A,NorthSide street.Monday,SouthSideMondayandFriday;NPATCommercial
Veh
101EastUnincorporatedNorthsideMarengo StreetbetweenProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,SA-8A,Both Sides CityTerraceDrandWestofDitmanMonday
Aye,nearCity/Countyboundaryline.
111EastUnincorporated PomonaBIfrom SadlerAvetoAltaProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,SA-8A,NorthSide Medbuildingwestof Hiliview AveMonday,SouthSideMondayandFriday;NPATCommercial Veh
121MetroUnincorporated WhitesideatBonnieBeachP1-ProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,11A-3P,NorthSide culdesacMonday;ProhibitOvernightPaking7p-5aBothSides
Everyday
131EastUnincorporatedSouthboundFordAvebetween1stProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,SA-8A,Both Sides Stand 3rdStFridays
141EastUnincorporated6RV’sneartheAltaMedfacility.ProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,5A-8A,NorthSide Monday,SouthSideMondayandFriday;NPATCommercial
Veh
152WestLosAngelesJeffersonBlvdbetweenLincolnBlvdNoStoppingalongthenorthsidebetween300’w/oLincoln andCulverBlvd.Blvdand300feet eastofLincolnBlvd(Adoptedon 8/22/1967)
162SouthUnincorporatedAcrossfrom901S MinorSt.1.Westside-PROHIBITPARKING FOR STREETSWEEPING PURPOSES,81W11A-3P,THURSDAYONLY

2.Eastside-PROHIBITPARKING FOR STREETSWEEPING
PURPOSES,B/W8A-12N,FRIDAYSONLY
.extto7..aybooknorthof
WhittierBlvd.
,aybrookAvefromN,0ofHui
ProhibitParkingforStreetSweeping,BothSides,8A-12P,
Wednesdaysonly
1 172SouthBayUnincorporatedWest120thStreetbetweenStreetsweepingparkingrestiction:

RaymondAvenue andNormandie1.SouthSide9to11amMondays,WesternAvetoVermont AvenueAve.

2.NorthSide11amto1pmTuesdays,WesternAveto
VermontAve
182SouthUnincorporatedLennonSt.&SpringSt.Streetsweepingparkingrestriction3amto5am Wednesdays,bothsides
192SouthUnincorporatedOn58ThP1.CentralAv.ToHooper1.StreetSweeping parking RestrictionN/S4amto7am Av.FridaysbetweenCentralAveandHooperAve
S/S11amto3pmWednesdaybetweenCentralAvenueand
ComptonAvenue

2.1hourparkingrestictiononthesouthsidebetween177’
e/oCentralAveto635’w/oHooperAve
202SouthUnincorporatedLouDillonAve.between85thSt.&1.NoParkingbtwn6PMand7amE/Sbtwn83rdStand 83rdSt.FirestoneBlvd.

2.StreetSweeping RegulationW/S 8amto12pm
WednesdaysbtwnNadeauStand FirestoneBIE/S4amto7
am Fridays,btwn83rdStandFiresoneBI
212SouthUnincorporated85thSt.BetweenLouDillonAve.&1.StreetSweeping4amto7amFridays,B/S AlamedaSt.2.NoParkingVehiclesforsale.B/S

3. Noparking6pmto7amB/S
222SouthUnincorporatedRedondoBeachBlvd.BetweenMainStreetSweepiingrestriction3amto5am,Wednesdayson St.&SanPedroSt.bothsides btwnFigueroaandSanPedro

23.2SouthUnincorporatedBroadwaybetween133rdSt.&1.StreetSweepingrestrictiononbothsidesbetween3am l3SthSt.and5amTuesdays,FromElSegundo81andAlondraAve.

2.NoParkingfor Vehicles forSale,bothsides
242SouthUnincorporated9722BairdAve.1.StreetSweepingrestrictiononBairdAve11amto3pmon theeastside,Thursdays,8to12NoonFrydays,westside.
252SouthUnincorporated2301LeotaSt.1.PROHIBITPARKINGFOR STREETSWEEPING PURPOSES B/W8A-12P,TUESDAYSONLY,ONTHESOUTHSIDE
BETWEENROSEBERRYAVEAND SANTAFEAVE.
8AM-12P,MONDAYSONTHENORTHSIDE
262SouthUnincorporatedComptonBlvd.BetweenFigueroaSt.PARKING RESTRICTIONFORSTREETSWEEPING &MapleAve.WEDNESDAYS3AM-SAMONCOMPTONBOULEVARDBOTH
SIDES,ACTIVESINCE08/08/2017
272SouthUnincorporated lS4rhSt.BetweenAvalonBlvd.&STREETSWEEPINGRESTRICTIONONNORTHSIDEBETWEEN SanPedroSt.9A-11ATHURSDAYSONLY:STREET
SWEEPINGRESTRICTIONONTHESOUTHSIDEBETWEEN9A-
hAWEDNESDAYSONLY
282SouthUnincorporated15707AvalonBlvd.1. STREETSWEEPINGRESTRICTIONBETWEEN8A-1OA WEDNESDAYSONLYONTHEEASTSIDEBETWEEN9A-11A

THURSDAYSONLYONTHEWESTSIDE

2.STOPPINGPROHIBITIONAVALONBLVDB/S-BETWEEN
ALONDRABLVDAND800’NbALONDRABLVD
292SouthUnincorporated96thSt.BetweenAlmedaSt.&1.96TH STN/S,B/WLAURELSTANDALAMEDAST81 LaurelSt.PROHIBITPARKINGFORSTREETSWEEPING PURPOSES,B/W
11A-3P,THURSDAYONLY;
s/S,B/WURELSTILAMEDASTROHIBITPARKING
FORSTREETSWEEPINGPURPOSES,81W8A-12N,FRIDAYS
ONLY
2 302SouthUnincorporatedAlongbothsidesofJuniperSt.from1. PARKINGRESTRICTIONFORSTREETSWEEPING 88thSt.to90thSt.thereare15RV’sPURPOSES,B/W 8A-12N,FRIDAYS ONLYW/S; parkedwith largeamountsofdebrisPARKING RESTRICTION FORSTREETSWEEPING PURPOSES, andbulkyitemsB/W11A-3P,THURSDAYSONLY

2.NOPARKINGVEHICLESFORSALEB/S
312SouthUnincorporatedAcrossfrom8711JuniperSt.1.PARKINGRESTRICTIONFOR STREETSWEEPING PURPOSES,81W8A-12N,FRIDAYS ONLYW/S;

PARKINGRESTRICTION FOR STREETSWEEPING PURPOSES,
B/W 11A-3P,THURSDAYSONLY2.NO

PARKINGVEHICLES FORSALEB/S
322SouthUnincorporatedSanPedroSt.betweenAvalonBlvd.1.PARKINGPROHIBITION-SANPEDROSTE/S,8/W &RedondoBeachBlvd.REDONDOBEACHBLVDAND70FTS/OVALONBLVD/W 6:30A-8AM,SATURDAYS&SUNDAYSEXCEPTED;

PARKINGPROHIBITION-SANPEDROSTMJ/S,B/W
REDONDOBEACHBLVD-240FTS/OVALONBLVD81W
6:30A-8AM,SATURDAYS&SUNDAYSEXCEPTED

2.NSATONSANPEDDROSTONW/SBTWN240’ N/O
COMPTONBLVDTO240S/OREDONDOBEACHBLVD

3.NOVEHICLES FORSALEB/S
332SouthUnincorporated96thP1betweenAlamedaandLaurel1.STREETSWEEPING S/SB/W 11A-3P,THURSDAYONLY N/SB/W 8A-12N,FRIDAYS ONLY

2.96THPLACEB/S,BTWNLAURELSTREETALAMEDA
STREETACTIVE02/05/2019NOPARKING,EXCEPT ON

SUNDAYS
342SouthUnincorporatedOnLouDillonAvefrom76thSttoSTREETSWEEPINGW/S,8A-12N,WEDNESDAYSONLY 78thStE/S8A-12P,THURSDAYSONLY
352SouthUnincorporatedAlleyacross2620E.133rd(N/ofParkingisnotpermittedinalleysregardlessofpostedsigns.

Address(andrunsEasttoWest
across from
2508 E.133rdSt.
362SouthUnincorporatedN/sideandS/sideof58thP1.Northside-PROHIBITPARKINGFORSTREETSWEEPING betweenComptonandHooperPURPOSES,B/W11A-3P,TUESDAYSONLY
South side-PROHIBITPARKING FORSTREETSWEEPING
PURPOSES,81W11A-3P,WEDNESDAYSONLY
37 4EastHuntingtonPark6000S.WilmingtonAv.RandolphtoOnwestside ofWilmingtonAvenue,parkingprohibitedfor 60thStstreetsweepingpurposesbetween4-7AMFridaysOnly;
OneastsideofWilmington Avenue,parkingprohibitedon
Sundaysbetween6AM-9AM
3 ExistingParkingRegulationsaroundRVHotSpots
Page1
-LennonStreet betweenSpringStreetandMainStreet
-SpringStreetbetweenLennonStreetandMainStreet
-RedondoBeachBoulevardbetweenFigueroaStreetandSanPedro
-ComptonBoulevardbetweenFigueroaStreetandMapleAvenue
-
l54StreetbetweenSanPedroStreetandAvalonBoulevard
Page2.
-BroadwaybetweenElSegundoand135”Street
Page3
-
l2OStreetbetweenNormandieAvenueandVermontAvenue
Page4
-BairdAvenuebetween92ndStreetand96thStreet
Page5
-MinerStreet between881hStreetandg2dStreet
-JuniperStreet between88thStreetandg2ndStreet
-96thPlacebetweenLaurelStreetand AlamedaStreet
-g6thStreetbetweenLaurelStreetandAlamedaStreet
Page6
-LouDillonAvenuebetween83rdStreetand85t11Street
-83rdStreetbetweenLouDillonAvenue andAlamedaStreet
Page7
-LeotaStreetbetweenRoseberryAvenue andSantaFeAvenue
-LouDillonAvenuebetween76”StreetandNadeauStreet
Page8
-58thPlacebetweenCentralAvenueandCornptonAvenue
-WilmingtonAvenuebetweenRandolphStreetand61stStreet
Page9
-MariannaAvenuebetweenTelegraphRoadandOlympicBoulevard
Page10
-SaybrookAvenueBetweenHubbardStreetandWhittierBoulevard Page11
-PomonaBoulevardbetweenAtlanticBoulevardandGerhartAvenue Page12
-TownsendAvenuebetweenMichiganand3IdStreet
-RowanAvenuebetweenCesarChavezand1StStreet
-FordBoulevardbetween1stStreetand3IdStreet
Page13
-KnowlesAvenuebetweenPerryStreetandRogersStreet
-WhitesideStreetbetweenFowlerStreetandEasternStreet
-FishburnAvenuebetweenMedfordStreetandFowlerStreet
-MarengoStreetbetweenDitmanAvenueandCityTerraceDrive
-CityTerraceDrivebetweenMarengoStreetandBonnieBeachPlace Page14
-JeffersonBoulevardbetweenLincolnBoulevardandCulverBoulevard W Ro.ecraIvI Ave
148th Ot
.1
W 114th St
Lennon Street
No Parking 3am to 5am - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping Spring Street
No Parking 3am to 5am - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping Redondo Beach Boulevard
No Parking 3am to Sam - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping Compton Boulevard
No Parking 3am to Sam - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping E Compton I
Atf
154th Street
No Parking 9am to 11am - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 9am to 11am - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping ‘‘‘d5
Avalon Boulevard
No Parking 8am to lOam - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 9am to 11am - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping 2-Hour Parking 7am to 6pm - Everyday, Saturday and Sunday Excepted i’ 144Th St
W 45Th St
WI4SthSI
4 W 147th SI
Wi48thSt et
W 148th Pt
Wi 47th St
4 W ¶4hTr, St I,
S
a,
0 a
a,
own V,ta Or
ny Cf
W 15204 St
S l4ith St
E Senla Sin
•0
0 F Coo,ptao Ivd
Rosewood’Wast
Rancho
Oomingu.z
W 114th St
14Ifl S

I1
s iO’CO4 S
a
en
a
0 a
en
‘4
S Hoovef SI
SI -
,
-
3k
Ate Way
*
, -------.-
SSpringSI -
,riJL’:
- z— SM
-. S C II n Ac.
- Jv4 Ave - -
- S MaW SI
31 (0
Pedro St
‘C,
0 - - CCokSt
en
(0
Crofler Ave
Meitler Av.

Traub Aye
N SaI,nas Avi
N Dee, Ave
a
en
-c
Tower. Ac.

Slavined Av
UcI(,nIe ArC
Avalon
Di
(S
F’J
1 I
14 ‘C
C
C
Wa
99 117th St
Gaddes St
0 W 11Mb P1
Vs tt!th St
4 >
5 4
0 V
117th St
St
121st St
St
[:11 5.

W 119th St 119th St
0 99 119th Pt
99 121st St
4 *, 1171h51
9911619 St
I,
nd St
99 121st St
0 S.

W 1190, St
121st St
St
99122nd St
4 .0
5,
W 12449 St
0t
V
W 123rd St .: -
124th St
99 122nd St
99 121 st St
99 123rd St
W 120th St
99 125th St
444
St
W 12449 St
61’ 121st St
4 0
St
W 125th St
120th Street
No Parking 9am to 11am - Mondays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 11am to 1pm - Tuesdays Only - Street Sweeping W 123,4 St
S
99 17411, St.
— 00
99 125th

vi Compton Ave
C)
Defiance Ave
vi vi
;
a Male Ave fli
vi
Grdee Av
-:
- vi Graham Ave
Beach Si
M
in
a
a
II
00 B
-v -o
-f -I
D <

IDID CD
IF
D
cm
II I
‘
3 Ilj
-alOli Bind AeIon Bled —
Palarna Ave
Stanford Are
,tod Ave
mF
1! iv I
• in ii . vi vi vi
C)
Mrtcinlay Ave
-
in
ni r at a vi
vi 0 - Wad*Oitii Ave
-l
Iswoiih Ace
Ciovit Ave CIovi Ace
A
SC.lIIlI Are Ilvvper Avn
- Pace Ave
in
BairdAve
0 Zamora Avg
III
a in -
g Parinei.e Ave
cv-
SUCCCC, Ave
lc
Courtney SI Antoeip St -
huh Blvd
Inert Ave
iv
I_I
La
vi
a
IiE
Holmgs Ave
Baridera Si
Wilininglon Ave
-
An,.c Ave -
- it
I-’
-vDi
ID
(S
IthS?
sISt
2nd St
E 95th P1
.

S
•0
0 4 g -
-: .970h St
96th Place
No Parking 11am to 3pm - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking Sam to Noon - Fridays Only - Street Sweeping 96th Street
L_ No Parking Any Time
4 a
S
U
ESSthSI
ESItIiSt
92ndSt
— 40 10
4 E95thSt
E 90th 51
=
C..

U
a
a•
•,
p
88th St S
St2ndSt LOU A9ab
oe
3 UI •
a 0
95th 51
4 ci
UI
p
97th St S 97th St •
—
99th Pt — F 99th Pt .Z
‘S
Soothe,0 Ae --
GlOfl400d Pt
low.. A0,
loin.,.

Miner Street
No Parking 11am to 3pm - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 8am to Noon - Fridays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 8pm to 6am - Everyday
“O Av
Missouri *v,
t
0 (0
Juniper Street
No Parking 11am to 3pm - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 8am to Noon - Fridays Only - Street Sweeping

êltSt
F 82nd St
4 EB3rdSt
F 84th St

2.S
E8IhSt
Cole t
sale Pt
- k S
C4
0 T
-C]
-. -
4 05 •
F
(I
4 t
Flop
& tool
Orcl,4 p
Lou Dillon Avenue
No Parking 8am to Noon - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 4am to 7am - Friday Only - Street Sweeping
No Parking 6pm to 7am - Everyday
83rd Street
No Parking 4am to 7am - Friday Only - Street Sweeping
No Parking 6pm to 7am - Everyday

4 151 St
4 0
a
F
a
0 F 82nd P1
E8Olhst.
85 thSt
jO CetrterSt
Firestone
‘- Park
Short SI
palm p
F 8th SI
4 ESlstSt
a
C 4
a
83rd St
5,
I
4 8..Brvd -
x
88?8
C5d.4I5Y
- -
-
.hflanj Cent..

Santa
Pine Pt
Ca.n p
-
Poplar p
A00
• -.

Fr. stone
I
-t• F Slth.Pl
a.
4 a
a.

F0
ci
E88*hSt
4 a
I
89th SI
> F
L0
F
04 I 8811’ St
—
£8918 St
F
Fr
e
Jo,81 pj
Leota Street
No Parking 8am to Noon - Mondays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 8am to Noon - Tuesdays Only - Street Sweeping Lou Dillon Avenue
No Parking 8am to Noon - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 8am to Noon - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping bvt Web.e Pa
Piu
p t.O
U
FIor.nc. —-‘!_
EF;orese Ave
4 E
C
U
E7tt St
w,nst St
Ave
I 7Qtt St FIenoe
Firestone.
- E
E76t%Pt
5 E7715St - E
E77thPI
j
E7SthSt .— II
T8thSt
ieU St ----:-_=-z=
I
E80thS1
•1
E 81st St
— Nad.aU
4 E 71t1 St
•VV_
—cz:2zr C florenti Ave - -
piP8v_•
C 73rd Si -
PETCO
t’4tSS
4tTthSt -
c, EThTh’
—
- 0
Pr1,
E76IIIPI >
rtb,
WIost Tef 51
C th St
V - Waiter SI
C 78th St
Nadeau SI ..-
81st St
Cefet SI
C FRlvtcr
St
tvvoSt
Ft0,. 51
G(and A
St
St
5:
‘a
Wainti
4 st

a
4 0
a
Ee
U
58th Place
No Parking 11am to 3am - Tuesdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 11am to 3pm - Wednesdays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 4am to 7am - Fridays Only - Street Sweeping
1 Hour Parking
Wilmington Avenue
— No Parking 4am to 7am - Fridays Only - Street Sweeping No Parking 6am to 9am - Sundays Only - Street Sweeping
(City of Huntington Park)

E57thSI o -
t
6 56th Si
-
___
3ih Pt
4 C
F 59th St
)th St. 60th SI
650th Dr 56Th Dr
Wrng1000
50th Dr
F Stau,ovr Awe
— a
4 Wi 0
F Anderson St
F 50th Dr
F. 9tt, Pt
F 601W St
F 5tt, Pt Laura AveU,
=
t6lslSt -.6 Glut Si
2nctSt V
- E62ndSi E63ndSt
V
6641651
V si €st St
V V
E1.Vn
bbJJU.

ESSthSt
V
EGOtJwSt Lbint
— —CkvrnIpr
vhnU4-
F his? SI
4 ‘3
6 63rd St
6 64th Si
6 62nd St
Gage Awe
‘5
4 —
0 V

1.)
0 Gag. Awe
U,
I 6th St
:e Al.a
S Alma AveCon,nr.rc,
S Hicki Ave
• S Hicki Ave
S D I nan Ave
SRou. AveS Rowan Ave
Alma Ave S Alma Avi
C
Oilman Ave SOilmarrAv
S
S Townsend Aver
UI
II
z
OOa
0 J
5:
i0LO
33 zz
0000
D
. D

0. C
a) -,
In
In a)o.<DIn
‘<0
lJi<
(D(fl
(D r-t
Rowan Ave S Rowan Ave
cairn Way m S LasTiflan Ave
V
SGaoeAve
I AyeS llmlrerlAve
Galie Ave
- S Record Ave
S Herbell Ave
S
I Beac!lII
ney Rd
S Bonnie Beach P1
Record A
S Downell Rd
Si
01 Dr
ire Bea
Sunol DI
C
t
S Blinrrrri
a
DeWney Rd
C
C
UI
darranna A’
S Augusta Ave
fl Ave
I
Ave McBrir,
Ave
fly
‘.

S4 Toa
el,’5
we
It;
4 3L; l,el
s
4L’e
k;,0
wp1
0 -va)
10 (D
10 /1
‘v //
St1 V
S
i
IIz
fl
00 DJ
?cc
0 5 5
0 coco
>
oJc)<33zz0000D
J
(DcbD (DD)
Lfl
<
U,
-<0
o-<-<In
• rt
UIn (DDD
0 3
I
$
Ge,,a,1
$IflO*iIAe .fMLI
•4U
1 q
j
2 AUe;
0-
Leo
Gapa.

EltoflAv.. .
.
r
-
2’
,,
0 1;
•0
3 i.U
// —
A
m 0
Hanover
Av
c
C
‘0‘flu
4 4ve
SSybrookA
I
I
Ser,A
£‘
U,
C
5 fit ‘C
f
3 ! :‘U
“
C
I.,
s_ ‘z
ficOurs. A
i’,0
V
If
•
Ab•
I:
0 ac’
• a 3
C&
4 MoaflO
P1
a
jI
:‘
S
OJ 0 0
9 I
N21o$
p. -
1 N209
s,
-
Eb
ElstSt —-
Es •S
H
Pomona Boulevard
No Parking 5am to 8am - Mondays Only - Street Sweeping
No Parking 5am to 8am - Mondays and Fridays - Street Sweeping No Parking 11am to 3pm - Thursdays Only - Street Sweeping No Stopping Any Time
>
3 0
Ot
4 alon St
C,,
a
w1tSt
--
/
--V
St
- --
:
;/
W FIoaI Or
W Hammal St W Hmmat St
w iad Or
4 0
W GI0t0” St
W F4n1C&d Dr
E
B.b ‘/
Ebfl.,,r,
hOOI 4
PC,,k >
S.e
‘q. /i—-0,, . -
N
W Makland 0,.
4 t
/
W GIeson S
00 4
W Pon0rt Stod
4 F.rntaCd
‘a
dth st
-
4S
br. nil
Slhi-I
4 Dewa, Aoe
a
a
.
;
J
__4_
x
to
C
a,
C
4 t