The San Luis Obispo County civil grand jury is not pleased with the Oklahoma Avenue Safe Parking Site—so much so that it recommended a list of 11 changes for county officials to make.
In the report “Safe Parking? Oklahoma is not OK!” the grand jury detailed its investigation of the site—a county pilot project that opened in August 2021 near the Sheriff’s Office that aimed to temporarily shelter unhoused people living out of their vehicles. The SLO County Board of Supervisors approved responses to some of the grand jury’s suggestions at its July 18 meeting.
The deaths of two program participants—one in an RV fire last February and the other the result of an alleged drug overdose a month later—coupled with the lack of a comprehensive formal assessment of the parking site by county officials, their intention to open more parking sites in the future, and residents’ complaints in local media reports sparked the grand jury’s scrutiny.
“While Oklahoma Avenue Parking Village is slated to close, the need has not diminished over the past 18 months and is likely to increase,” the grand jury report read. “How will San Luis Obispo County address vehicular homelessness in the future?”
Maintaining round-the-clock security became a significant point of interest for the grand jury. Through interviews, site visits, and analyzing participant outcomes and documents, meeting minutes, and videos, it found that the Sheriff’s Office responded 493 times to on-site incidents in the first 15 months of the program opening.
The county contracted with Condor Security of America when it established the safe parking site. At $20,000 a month for security, it was the single largest expense for the project, according to the grand jury report. When Condor exceeded their contract amount, the county replaced them with Good Guard Security last year. Security coverage then fluctuated from three shifts a day to one, and finally a reinstatement of 24/7 surveillance. Good Guard filed 90 incident reports with the county about problematic situations with residents and visitors.
“It should be noted that the county received no incident reports during the period that the participants provided night security and reports completed by security guards disappeared from the guard shack,” the grand jury report read.
The grand jury went on to recommend that along with constant security from a licensed security contractor, the Homeless Services Division should conduct monthly reviews to assess the adequacy and address any security deficiencies.
Homeless Services responded to this recommendation, claiming that they already carry out the suggestions. However, the department stated it will begin a more formal security review process starting Aug. 1. Based on other recommendations, the division will also update the program participant contract and conduct an analysis of parked RVs that are “running and registered” by that same date.
“We have always maintained daily contact with the owners of the guard company and/or the assigned guard,” the response stated. “We address concerns as soon as we hear about them, and we do regular check-ins to determine how the service is going.”
However, Homeless Services rejected one of the grand jury’s recommendations because it cannot be legally implemented, according to the response statement. The grand jury is concerned about the welfare of minors at the safe parking site because of the alleged presence of “rampant substance abuse and drugs,” and “violence and threats of violence.”
“To compound the danger to these minor children, known sex offenders have resided at the site, without notice provided to other participants,” the grand jury report read. “If there are still children living onsite during this closure period, they should immediately be moved to a safe environment.”
However, Homeless Services claimed that it couldn’t remove minors from the site because of the intricate network involving Child Welfare Services, law enforcement, and the court system. Its response said that Child Welfare Services can only separate a child from the adult they are living with if a completed investigation proves that the adult has abused them.
“[It] must receive a report that alleges specific abuse or neglect against a specific child that rises to the level that would require an in-person response,” Homeless Services stated.
Without such a report, Child Welfare Services is unable to take action.
A mixture of county departments addressed the remaining 10 suggestions. Along with Homeless Services, the county Administrative Office, the Public Health Department, and Cal Fire reviewed the grand jury recommendations.
Some of these include conducting monthly inspections of the site for potential health and safety violations from July or August, establishing a date by Sept. 1 to close the safe parking site and completing the county’s fire analysis by Nov. 30.
“An essential step at the conclusion of any pilot program is to identify lessons learned in order to avoid repeating missteps and to determine the best path forward,” the grand jury report said. “The findings and recommendations in this report by the grand jury are meant to contribute to that process.” Δ
This article appears in Jul 20-30, 2023.