Arroyo Grande’s horizon includes ambitious plans to address the homelessness and affordable housing problems—an ordinance for safe parking sites.
Originally meant for study at its Feb. 28 City Council meeting, the ordinance discussion was tabled after a previous agenda item about the future of fire services took longer than anticipated. Community Development Director Brian Pedrotti told New Times that the City Council will bring it back for deliberation in the spring, and added that if approved, it would be the first of its kind in Arroyo Grande.
“We don’t really have a definition in our municipal code that fits this type of land use,” he said. “A part of this ordinance would be to create a definition for safe parking sites.”
The draft ordinance defines a safe parking site as a “paved parking lot outside of the public right of way that provides unhoused individuals and/or families who are living in a vehicle a dedicated, safe place to park overnight.” It added that the occupants should not pay rent to their host, and occupying a vehicle parked in an approved location will not violate local municipal code.
City staff’s interest in establishing safe parking sites stems from talks they had with faith-based leaders in 2020. Pedrotti said that several pastors, such as those from St. John’s Lutheran Church, approached the city about starting safe parking programs in response to rising rates of homelessness and the unique set of legal, social, and economic challenges faced by people living out of their vehicles.
The city initially recommended amending the conditional use permit issued to St. John’s to set up a permanent safe parking site. But the church pushed back and asked for a more “streamlined process.”
“They were more in favor of a process that didn’t involve a discretionary land use permit that would have to go through public hearing,” Pedrotti said. “Public hearings with discretionary permits would also have more scrutiny and be more costly.”
So, city staff issued a lower-level temporary use permit to St. John’s in September 2020, which authorized four parking spaces in the church parking lot as a temporary relief program. The church was allowed to operate that way for 12 months, including an extension of six months after no complaints were received.
The experience with St. John’s inspired city officials to consider an ordinance for property owners or parties interested in starting a safe parking program to establish one. The proposed idea is that the program can be in any area of the two approved zoning districts, which are the Public Facility and Industrial Mixed-Use zones.
“It’s on the condition that there would need to be a social service provider to work with them,” Pedrotti said.
Once that requirement is met, the program host would apply for a Safe Parking Permit for a one-time fee of $756. The project site could be active for 18 months, with the possibility of an 18-month extension if Pedrotti finds no violations. He told New Times that city staff has been looking into a safe parking ordinance for a few years, much before San Luis Obispo County set up its own controversial site at Kansas Avenue.
“It’s interesting timing that it was going to be discussed the same day as the article came out,” Pedrotti said of a Feb. 28 story that ran in The Tribune (“SLO County Safe Parking Site to close. What will happen to residents?”). “This is just one tool to fight the homelessness crisis and won’t be the sole solution.” Δ
This article appears in Mar 2-12, 2023.
Why a Safe Parking Ordinance -with a fee! – allowing a property owner[individual or organization] to allow overnight parking? Why not some simple “No Overnight Parking” signs scattered around the city with property owners having the right to allow friends, family or strangers to park on paved surfaces. In my neighborhood, we get visitors parking overnight and none of us cares at all much less the city.
Instead of permitting property owners and/or a business or organization to allow overnight parking after payiing a fee unlees or until some existing ordinance is violated or some harm done, the city has to attach controls.
It always ends up a control issue. Who decides who can do what where – with a fee attached.
A social worker? Who finds and pays for a social worker? What would they do? Why? Would anyone’s lifestyle choices change because a social worker is assigned to some overnight parking area?
What next? Toilets, showers, laundry required? No wonder few offer such safe parking and will do once thsi ordinance passes.