HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-28; City Council; ; Options for the Carlsbad hotel/motel voucher pilot programCA Review: MK
Meeting Date: Sept. 28, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Mandy Mills, Housing & Homeless Services Director
mandy.mills@carlsbadca.gov, 760-434-2907
Holly Nelson, Senior Homeless Program Manager
holly.nelson@carlsbadca.gov, 760-931-3824
Subject: Options for the Carlsbad hotel/motel voucher pilot program
Districts: All
Recommended Action
Receive the staff report, consider the presented options to the proposed 12-month Carlsbad
hotel/motel voucher pilot program and provide direction to staff, as appropriate.
Executive Summary
The City Council identified reducing homelessness as one of its top three goals for the fiscal
year that began July 1, 2021. Creating a hotel voucher pilot program is one of several new
strategies the council approved as part of the work plan developed by city staff to support this
goal. The voucher program would have two main benefits:
1.Helps people experiencing homelessness transition to permanent housing by providing
the basic needs of food and shelter while linking them to services in a safe, stable
location.
2.Allows the city to more readily enforce certain laws, such as those that prohibit sleeping
or camping outside on public property. Based on recent court rulings, in many cases,
those laws can only be enforced if shelter has been offered and refused.
Staff have faced several challenges in finding a suitable location for a hotel or motel for the
voucher program, as originally presented to the council. These challenges include:
•A low level of interest from potential hotels due to an increase in visitor demand over
the summer months and concerns about brand image.
•City land use rules significantly limit the number of potential hotel partners because of
zoning regulations limiting permissible locations, the length of stay and the provision of
on-site services envisioned by the city’s voucher program.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 1 of 31
• Community concerns about a hotel voucher program for the homeless not being
compatible with neighborhoods surrounding program hotel(s).
This report provides an update on city staff’s efforts to develop the hotel voucher pilot program
over the past several months and presents several options for the City Council’s consideration
and direction.
Discussion
Purpose and intent
The City of Carlsbad is pursuing options to increase the number of shelter beds in the city to:
1) Temporarily house individuals and households experiencing homelessness, in
combination with critical services such as case management, behavioral health and
transportation, to help bridge these individuals to permanent housing.
The 2020 Point-in-Time Count identified 147 people who were experiencing homelessness in
the City of Carlsbad. This includes 94 people who were unsheltered and 53 who were sheltered
at La Posada de Guadalupe, the only homeless shelter in Carlsbad. The city’s Homeless
Outreach Team encountered 507 individual homeless people, that is, with no one counted
more than once, in Carlsbad over the course of 2020 and engaged with 115 individuals
experiencing homelessness in the City of Carlsbad over the last six months.
La Posada is owned and operated by Catholic Charities. The shelter has more than 100 beds,
but only 50 of them are identified as emergency shelter beds, and the shelter serves men only.
The City of Carlsbad has no emergency shelter beds for women or children, who make up
nearly a third of the Carlsbad homeless population, according to the 2020 Point-in-Time Count
and data collected by the Homeless Outreach Team. There are only 144 year-round emergency
shelter beds in North County that serve men, women, and families, and none of these programs
admits participants in the evening hours or on weekends.
2) Increase the police department’s ability to enforce certain laws such as those that
prohibit sleeping or camping outside on public property consistent with recent court
rulings such as Martin v. City of Boise, as explained below.
The court’s ruling in the Martin v. Boise case limited the government’s ability to criminally
prosecute people for sleeping outside on public property if they lack meaningful access to
shelter. The court found that a city ordinance violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause
of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if “it imposes criminal sanctions against
homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is
available to them.”
However, the court clarified that its ruling was narrow, and that cities do not need to “allow
anyone who wishes to sit, lie or sleep on the streets … at any time and at any place.” The court
explained:
Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to
adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for it
or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose not to use
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 2 of 31
it. Nor do we suggest that a jurisdiction with insufficient shelter can never
criminalize the act of sleeping outside. Even where shelter is unavailable, an
ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in
particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible. … So, too, might
an ordinance barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of
certain structures.
In summary, in jurisdictions where there are fewer shelter beds than homeless persons, the
Martin v. Boise ruling has been interpreted to limit enforcement. In many jurisdictions, police
officers can only cite individuals for sleeping or camping on public property after verifying that
an individual has access to adequate temporary shelter and refuses such shelter. If no shelter
beds are available to the individual, the officer should not issue the citation.
Notwithstanding this limitation, Martin v. Boise left open the possibility that, even where
shelter is unavailable, cities could enact and enforce ordinances prohibiting sitting, lying or
sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations. Additionally, cities may enact and
enforce ordinances barring the obstruction of public right of ways or the erection of certain
structures, provided the ordinance does not punish “a person for lacking the means to live out
the ‘universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.’”
Background
On March 11, 2021, the City Council established a Fiscal Year 2021-22 priority goal to “reduce
the homeless unsheltered population, among those who want help, by 50% within five years,
with quarterly reports until we decrease the unsheltered homeless population or five years”
and directed staff to develop a work plan to achieve a set of specific objectives over the next 12
to 18 months to help achieve this goal. The City Council approved the work plan and necessary
funding appropriations needed to help achieve its goal on April 27, 2021 (Exhibit 1). One of the
programs in the approved work plan authorized staff to develop a 12-month Carlsbad
hotel/motel voucher pilot program. The City Council allocated $3,200,000 from the city’s
general fund to develop and operate the pilot program.
As approved, the pilot program was intended to provide low-barrier shelter for the most
vulnerable homeless community members. The design of the pilot program would utilize a
block of up to 40 rooms at an appropriately located hotel site in Carlsbad to shelter high risk
individuals, women and families for up to six months, and to provide on-site comprehensive
case management and support services (social workers, behavioral health, meals, laundry,
transportation, security, etc.) to the participants, with the goal of bridging at least 50% of
participants to permanent housing by the end of their stay.
At the time the City Council approved the work program in April 2021, the city was eligible to
seek reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a significant portion
of the $3.2 million cost of the pilot hotel voucher program. The FEMA reimbursement funds are
available because the federal government is incentivizing localities to help shelter “high risk”
individuals experiencing homelessness as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s recommendations for non-congregate care settings during the COVID-19 health
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 3 of 31
crisis. The original deadline for reimbursement was Sept. 30, 2021, but that deadline has since
been extended to Dec. 31, 2021.
Twelve-month Carlsbad hotel/motel voucher pilot program challenges
In working toward the development of a Carlsbad hotel/motel voucher pilot program, staff
encountered several challenges to implementation, from very limited to no participation from
hotels to challenges associated with existing land use and zoning considerations.
Hotel participation
Staff have reached out to a number of hotel operators to ask if they would be interested in
participating in the voucher program. Initially, several hotels expressed a willingness to
participate. The preliminary conversations took place when COVID-19 restrictions and impacts
were still having a strong negative effect on hotel occupancy rates. However, over time, several
hotels declined to participate as hotel occupancy rates improved due to tourism and business
travel resuming, presumably making sheltering people experiencing homelessness less
appealing. Additionally, several hotels expressed concerns with how participation in the
program might affect their brands and properties.
The operators of one hotel, the Hyland Inn located on Pio Pico Drive south of Chestnut Avenue,
expressed interest in participating in the hotel voucher program. The Hyland Inn also
participated in the County of San Diego’s hotel voucher program from March-July 2020. The
hotel’s operators stated they had had a positive experience and would be willing to consider
participation in the city’s program. However, the Hyland Inn site is located in the city’s
Commercial-Tourist (C-T) Zone. This has been determined to be a significant barrier in allowing
for this hotel’s participation, as described below.
Land use and zoning considerations
Staff analyzed the proposed hotel voucher program design and determined that the program’s
planned use and activities met the Zoning Ordinance’s definition of an “emergency shelter.”
“Emergency shelter” is defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.140.5 as year-round
housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons or families with occupancy
limited to six months or less by homeless persons. Emergency shelters are only allowed as
permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Industrial Zone (M) and the Planned Industrial
Zone (P-M).
In general, the city’s hotels are subject to the city’s transient occupancy tax ordinance based on
the transient, or limited, nature of the stays (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 3.12). The
proposed voucher program would allow for stays of greater than 30 days but less than 6
months, pushing the occupancy beyond that of a transient occupancy as defined in this
ordinance (the definitions of “transient” and “occupancy” can be found in Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 3.12.020). In addition, the anticipated design of the voucher program with on-site
services could transform the use from that of a hotel. The proposed program would provide on-
site comprehensive case management and support services – social workers, behavioral health,
meals, laundry, transportation, security, etc. – to the occupants, with the goal of getting 50% of
the participants into permanent housing by the end of their stay. Additionally, if the program
was intent on securing more than 30 beds or serving more than 30 individuals in any one hotel,
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 4 of 31
the program would need to receive City Council approval of a conditional use permit, which
could greatly delay implementation of the program.
To operate a hotel voucher program as originally proposed, at least one of two conditions must
be met:
• The selected hotel site must be located in a zone that permits an emergency shelter use,
either by right, by utilizing fewer than 30 beds, or with a conditional use permit if more than
30 beds or persons would be utilized for this purpose
• The City Council could declare a shelter crisis in accordance with California Government
Code Sections 8698 – 8698.4 (Exhibit 2), which would relax the city’s current zoning
limitations (among other laws and standards), but would require that the hotel voucher
program operate from a “public facility” as defined in the Government Code, or from a
hotel reserved entirely for the homeless
Unfortunately, out of the 40 hotel properties located within the city, only seven hotels are
located within the zones that allow emergency shelters. Staff contacted the operators of all
seven hotels and they declined to participate in the hotel voucher program as originally
designed, with stays of greater than 30 days and wraparound services. This leaves the city with
no potential hotel sites properly zoned to allow the type of hotel voucher program proposed,
unless the City Council takes certain actions to expand the available zones for such a program
or alternative hotel/motel voucher programs are pursued.
Staff was directed to return to the City Council for further direction if implementation of the
proposed hotel voucher program proved unsuccessful. After extensive review, staff have
determined there are limited viable options for implementing the hotel voucher program as
originally conceived. As an alternative, this staff report is intended to offer the following short-
term, mid-term and long-term options to the proposed 12-month Carlsbad hotel/motel
voucher pilot program for the City Council’s consideration.
Options
Short-term option
Option 1: Limited-term stay emergency hotel voucher pilot program:
The city could sponsor a limited-term stay emergency hotel voucher pilot program, effective
between October 2021 through September 2022. This voucher program would provide for
limited-term stays (one evening authorized at a time) at an economy hotel, with the intent of
providing an immediate shelter alternative to camping or sleeping on public property. The hotel
site selected would be as near as reasonably possible to where the participant was contacted.
Interaction with the homeless population does not always occur during the day or within
normal business hours. To ensure full coverage 24 hours-a-day and seven days-a-week, the city
would identify a position within the city workforce that would be authorized to offer a hotel
voucher to homeless individuals or families at no charge on a case-by-case basis in the interest
of the health and safety of the voucher participant and of the community. Factors to be
considered before issuing additional vouchers to a single person include but are not limited to:
willingness to accept and continue seeking services, evidence of compliance with hotel rules
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 5 of 31
and evidence of efforts made to actively receive services intended to bridge the voucher
participant toward secure permanent housing.
All persons who receive a hotel voucher under this program will be visited by Homeless
Outreach Team officers and social workers the following morning. They will provide additional
social services and offer to connect the participant to longer-term shelter and housing
solutions. The program would work in conjunction with a new Humane Society contract, so that
homeless people with pets would not be excluded.
Funds for this program would draw from the $3.2 million that the City Council previously
allocated for the 12-month Hotel/Motel Voucher Pilot Program on April 27, 2021. The
requested budget for this program is $100,000, to be evaluated on a quarterly basis to
determine if more funds are necessary.
The following statistics will be compiled to determine the efficacy of the program and inform
the ongoing need for this and any other hotel voucher program:
• How many individuals were offered emergency vouchers on a nightly, weekly, and
monthly basis
• How many individuals accepted emergency vouchers on the same basis
• How many individuals were connected to additional resources as a result of the
emergency voucher program (either social services or housing resources)
• Factors or circumstances that influenced individuals to accept or deny a voucher
A report to the City Council will be provided after six months and following the 12-month pilot
program to determine whether the program should be continued and/or modified.
Pros
• The city could enforce its existing or proposed amended unlawful public camping
ordinance so long as a hotel voucher is offered and refused by an individual.
• The program could commence shortly after the City Council’s approval of the
program.
• The program can potentially get an individual immediately off the street compared
to existing emergency shelters, which require intake during normal business hours.
• The city would be able to partner with willing economy hotels in the city.
• Due to the transient nature of the stay, 30 days or less, and the limited provision of
services, the proposed program would be consistent with the city’s Zoning
Ordinance.
• Individual hotels may be more agreeable to participate in the voucher program with
a small number of participants and limited duration of stay in each hotel.
• This type of program can provide shelter to women and families, who currently have
no shelter in Carlsbad and limited available shelter space in the North County.
Cons
• The program has limited potential to bridge persons to longer-term solutions to
shelter/housing because of the limited length of stay.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 6 of 31
• Individuals may be discharged back to the streets because of the long shelter waitlist
and the limited number of emergency shelter beds in the North County.
• Participants may be denied hotel access at a given site if they do not have sufficient
identification, among other non-discriminatory reasons for refusal, to be determined
by the hotel.
• The city may be liable for property damages caused by voucher recipients.
Mid-term options
Option 2: Emergency Shelter Voucher Program at the Hyland Inn – Declaration of a
Shelter Crisis
As noted above, the operators of one hotel, the Hyland Inn expressed interest in participating in
the city’s originally proposed hotel voucher program. The Hyland Inn also participated in the
County of San Diego’s hotel voucher program from March-July 2020. However, the Hyland Inn
site is located in the Commercial-Tourist (C-T) Zone, which does not allow emergency shelters.
If the City Council wanted to pursue the originally planned hotel voucher program at the Hyland
Inn site, one mid-term option is to declare a shelter crisis. The mechanics of this declaration are
explained in detail below and were presented to the City Council on Jan. 21, 2020, and to the
council’s Homeless Action Subcommittee on June 28, 2021. In summary, a shelter crisis
declaration would temporarily suspend local zoning regulations, among other laws and
regulations, to allow for the placement of the hotel voucher program in that location only
during the shelter crisis. This option would require that the hotel be reserved entirely for the
homeless, or that the hotel be a “public facility.” A public facility is defined in Government Code
Section 8698(c) as “any facility of a political subdivision including parks, schools, and vacant or
underutilized facilities which are owned, operated, leased, or maintained, or any combination
thereof, by the political subdivision through money derived by taxation or assessment.”
Alternatively, as a long-term option, the City Council could direct staff to draft amendments to
the city’s Zoning Ordinance to allow for emergency shelters to be placed in other specified
zones, or in all zones of the city (see Option 5 below). However, this process could take at least
12 to 18 months for the provision of any new emergency shelter beds in new zones, or to
implement the originally proposed hotel voucher program at the Hyland Inn site.
Shelter crisis declaration
The City Council could declare a shelter crisis if a “significant number of persons within the
jurisdiction of the governing body are without the ability to obtain shelter, and that situation
has resulted in a threat to their health and safety of those persons” (Government Code Section
8698.2(a)(1)).
Declaring a shelter crisis would “allow persons unable to obtain housing to occupy designated
public facilities during the duration of the state of emergency” (Government Code Section
8698.2(b)). Government Code Section 8698.2(a)(2) authorizes a city to limit its shelter crisis
declaration to any geographical portion of the city.
Under Government Code Section 8698.1(a), a declaration of a shelter crisis would trigger the
following conditions, effective only during the period of the emergency:
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 7 of 31
1. The city would be immune from liability for ordinary negligence in conditions, acts or
omissions directly related to the provision of emergency housing.
2. All state and local regulations setting standards of housing, health or safety must be
suspended “to the extent that strict compliance would in any way prevent, hinder, or
delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis.” This section would only suspend
those regulations on any additional public facilities opened to the homeless under a
shelter crisis declaration.
3. A city has the option of enacting municipal health and safety standards in place of the
suspended regulations to ensure minimal public health and safety during the period of
emergency. This section would also only apply to additional public facilities opened to
the homeless under a shelter crisis declaration.
Additionally, during a shelter crisis declared in accordance with Government Code Section
8698.4, which applies to public facilities or homeless shelters reserved entirely for the homeless
for purposes of the shelter crisis declaration, “provisions of any housing, health, habitability,
planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, or laws shall be suspended for homeless
shelters, provided that the city, county, or city and county has adopted health and safety
standards and procedures for homeless shelters consistent with ensuring minimal public health
and safety and those standards are complied with.”
Certain landlord tenant laws providing grounds for eviction would also be suspended for
homeless shelters, provided that the city has adopted health and safety standards for homeless
shelters and those standards are complied with. Additionally, local and state laws that require
homeless shelters to be consistent with local land use plans, including the general plan, would
be suspended. California Environmental Quality Act exemptions would also apply under certain
circumstances, as stated in Government Code Section 8698.4(a)(4).
Government Code Sections 8698.4(a)(5)(A) and (D) would also require that if a city such as
Carlsbad declares a shelter crisis under this section, the city “shall develop a plan to address the
shelter crisis, including, but not limited to, the development of homeless shelters and
permanent supportive housing, as well as on-site supportive services. The city, county, or city
and county shall make the plan publicly available.” Numerous annual reporting requirements
would apply as well under Government Code Section 8698.4(a)(6).
It is important to note that the city has contemplated whether or not to declare a shelter crisis
since 2018 after the State of California released funding known as the Homeless Emergency Aid
Program to help localities address homelessness. To access these state funds, local jurisdictions
needed to declare a shelter crisis. The city did not declare a shelter crisis at that time, but
twelve out of the eighteen cities in San Diego County and the County of San Diego itself passed
shelter crisis declarations.1 The last time the City Council considered and discussed declaring a
1 Cities in San Diego County that have declared a shelter crisis: Chula Vista, City of El Cajon, City of Encinitas, City of
Escondido, City of Del Mar, City of Imperial Beach, City of La Mesa, City of Lemon Grove, City of Oceanside, City of
National City, City of San Diego, and City of Santee
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 8 of 31
shelter crisis was on Jan. 21, 2020, when the City Council declined to take any action to declare
a shelter crisis. The mechanics of a shelter crisis declaration were also discussed briefly at a
Homeless Action Subcommittee meeting on June 28, 2021, in the context of a safe parking lot
discussion.
If the city were to declare a shelter crisis, the hotel would need to (1) qualify as a “public
facility,” meaning that the city would have to own, operate, lease and/or maintain the hotel
through money derived by taxation or assessment; or (2) be utilized entirely as a homeless
shelter. In other words, the city would likely need to contract directly with the Hyland Inn to
meet the definition as a public facility (i.e., in a lease agreement), or the city would be required
to control the entire hotel, share the hotel site with another social service agency or have the
hotel agree to only rent rooms to individuals experiencing homelessness.
Pros
• The city could implement a hotel voucher program as originally proposed at the Hyland
Inn site.
• There is a willing and interested hotel in a geographic location near known locations of
the existing homeless population.
• The Hyland Inn has experience serving this population.
• FEMA funding for non-congregate care at a 100% reimbursement rate was extended
from Sept. 30, 2021 to Dec. 31, 2021.
• Declaring a shelter crisis may open up additional funding and use opportunities for the
city.
• Declaring a shelter crisis would afford the city greater zoning flexibility in executing a
hotel voucher program, and possibly other City Council-directed objectives related to
homelessness and housing.
Cons
• If the city declared a shelter crisis, the hotel site would need to be reserved entirely for
the homeless, or the site would need to be owned, operated, leased or maintained by
the city.
• Declaring a shelter crisis would entail additional state reporting requirements.
• There may be limitations or requirements attached to state funds that require a
jurisdiction to have declared a shelter crisis.
• Running a robust hotel voucher program with wraparound services is costly and only
provides short-term housing for a limited number of people.
• The city may end up paying for hotel rooms that are underutilized because the contract
may require the city to reserve a block of rooms in the partner hotel for the duration of
the contract, regardless of whether all rooms are filled each day.
Option 3: Scattered sites hotel voucher program model
A mid-term option offered for the City Council’s consideration is a hotel voucher program that
would be located at several dispersed hotel sites, as opposed to a single location. This hotel
voucher program would have off-site, rather than on-site, comprehensive case management
and support services such as social workers, behavioral health care, meals, laundry and
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 9 of 31
transportation to help participants transition to permanent housing. This model would place
individuals and households experiencing homelessness at various hotels throughout the city,
with each hotel sheltering only a limited number of people for a limited length of stay. This
model would comply with the city’s Zoning Ordinance because the length of occupancy and off-
site services would meet the Zoning Ordinance’s definition of an emergency shelter.
A third-party contractor/service provider would arrange with the operators of the various hotel
properties to make sure they would be willing to host participants. A person or household could
stay at one location for up to 30 days before having to relocate to another participating hotel
property. The hotel operator would rent a room to the person experiencing homelessness as it
would to any other hotel guest, but the contractor would pay for the room instead of the
participant.
Participants would be dispersed throughout the community and the contractor would provide
the case management and support services at an off-site location. The cost of providing on-site
security at each participating hotel could be prohibitive, given the number of hotels that might
participate. All participants would be required to develop and adhere to a housing plan and
attend weekly case management meetings.
This program model has worked in other agencies in San Diego County, as well as other
agencies outside of the county. The County of San Diego has operated a similar scattered site
model called the Regional Homeless Assistance Program in its unincorporated communities
since 2020. The program has served 1,000 people and currently has 340 people placed in 15
hotels throughout the county. County staff indicated that one of the biggest challenges of the
program is that participants still encounter difficulty securing permanent housing, because of
the limited availability of permanent housing and other factors, and the length of stay averages
8-10 months.
Pros
• The city could swiftly implement this hotel voucher program.
• The city would be eligible for FEMA reimbursement for a significant portion of costs
until Dec. 31, 2021.
• This model complies with the city’s Zoning Ordinance and would not require additional
legislative action.
• The program may have less community impact because the program participants would
be dispersed at different hotel sites.
• The operators of individual hotels may be more agreeable to participate with a small
number of participants at each hotel instead of committing to a larger program.
• This type of program has a successful track record in other jurisdictions/agencies.
• Having a larger pool of partner hotels will give a third-party contractor/service provider
flexibility with the participants’ length of stay and placement.
Cons
• This model may not be as effective in providing comprehensive services because the
resources are de-centralized and off-site; participants may be less engaged and progress
towards permanent housing goals may be slower.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 10 of 31
• There may be security concerns, as it may be too costly to provide for on-site security at
multiple hotel locations.
• Having individuals at scattered hotel sites will require more coordination of care. The
contractor will have to maintain strong working relationships with different hotel staff
and be mindful of the participants’ length of stay, arrange transportation and new hotel
accommodations every 30 days and arrange for payment to multiple hotel vendors.
• Rooms may be more expensive under this program.
• Participants may be denied hotel access at a given site if they do not have sufficient
identification, among other non-discriminatory reasons for refusal, to be determined by
the hotel.
• Transportation to access off-site service providers may be a challenge for participants.
Long-term options
Option 4: La Posada expansion
Expansion of La Posada de Guadalupe is a long-term solution to increase emergency shelter bed
capacity in Carlsbad. As noted above, La Posada, located on Impala Drive near the city’s Police
& Fire Headquarters, is Carlsbad’s only emergency shelter, and is owned and operated by
Catholic Charities. The shelter was originally built to serve homeless farm workers but has since
expanded to add bed capacity for the emergency shelter of homeless men. The current
authorized bed capacity is 120 beds, but only about 50 beds serve as emergency shelter beds
for the general homeless population. The remainder of the beds serve as transitional housing
for those transitioning from the emergency shelter and for farmworkers. The 50+ emergency
shelter beds are a critical component for the city to meet the needs of the homeless
population. The emergency shelter beds operate at an average occupancy of approximately
90%, with very few beds available on a daily basis. Over the last couple months occupancy has
hovered around 99%. It is important to point out that the existing facility is designed to serve
only men. To increase capacity to include women and families, the shelter would need to alter
its design or expand.
The City of Carlsbad supports the operation of La Posada through annual Community
Development Block Grant funding. Recently, the City Council, as a part of its Homeless Goal,
also funded and authorized city staff to develop a $540,000 three-year agreement ($180,000
per year) with Catholic Charities to hire two licensed clinicians and a third party consultant to
provide its staff with training so that the facility can operate as a “low-barrier” emergency
shelter. A low-barrier shelter is more able to offer immediate shelter while a participant
addresses the other contributing factors that led to their homelessness.
Catholic Charities has applied to the city to amend its conditional use permit for La Posada to
increase its bed capacity from 120 to 200 beds, all within the existing building footprint of the
shelter. The City of Carlsbad also granted $68,000 in Community Development Block Grant
funding to Catholic Charities to pay for architectural and engineering costs of examining the
feasibility of adding a second story to the La Posada building. If it proves feasible, Catholic
Charities has expressed a desire to use this second floor to provide shelter for women and
families.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 11 of 31
The La Posada site is located in a zone that allows for emergency shelters, making expansion of
the existing facility a feasible solution to increasing shelter bed capacity in Carlsbad for men,
women and families.
Should the physical expansion of the existing facility prove feasible, Catholic Charities would
need to raise capital before it could decide to expand. The City of Carlsbad could consider
funding options such as a Community Development Block Grant, the city’s Housing Trust Fund
or use city general funds to assist Catholic Charities with the expansion costs. The amount of
general fund dollars that could be offered would be limited by Proposition H, which limits the
city’s ability to expend general funds of more than $1 million on improvements to real estate. If
the City Council so directs, staff can research available funding sources to identify alternate
capital resources and return to the City Council for further direction.
Pros
• Investment into capital costs of La Posada expansion permanently increases the
emergency shelter bed capacity in the city.
• The expansion could satisfy an unmet need for emergency shelter beds for women and
families.
• The La Posada site is located in a zone that allows for emergency shelters.
• Catholic Charities has extensive experience operating emergency shelters for men and
women.
Cons
• La Posada’s operation is supported by regional funding sources, making the shelter beds
part of the Alliance for Regional Solutions program, so the shelter may not necessarily
reserve space for people experiencing homelessness in Carlsbad.
• As a long-term solution, this option does not immediately alleviate the current need for
emergency shelter beds and would not immediately reduce the visible homeless
population.
• Congregate shelter models are growing less popular, because of safety concerns around
COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
• La Posada will have to find the financial resources to appropriately staff the shelter’s
expansion.
• Increasing the number of people and composition on site may create more behavioral
issues, conflicts and other problems for the shelter staff.
Option 5: Amend provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to expand allowable emergency
shelter locations
The City of Carlsbad has an official land-use plan known as the Zoning Ordinance. This plan was
established to serve the public health, safety and general welfare and to provide the economic
and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources. There are 36
zones in the City of Carlsbad, and these zones are in place to classify, regulate, restrict and
segregate the uses of land and buildings, to regulate and restrict the height and bulk of
buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about buildings and to regulate
the density of population.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 12 of 31
The city has two approved zones that allow for emergency shelters and thirteen permitted
zones that allow for transitional housing. The Zoning Ordinance’s definitions of “emergency
shelter” and “transitional housing” and the zones in which these uses are permitted are a
barrier to implementing the originally proposed hotel voucher program, as detailed above in
Option 2. Neither of these definitions accurately capture the characteristics of this proposed
hotel voucher program with on-site comprehensive case management and support services
provided to the occupants and stays of up to six months long. Additionally, the zones in which
emergency shelters and transitional housing can be located may not be ideal for transportation
and providing resources for people experiencing homelessness.
To increase flexibility and provide greater housing options for people experiencing
homelessness, the City Council may desire to consider amendments to its current Zoning
Ordinance. The state continues to bring forward new legislation and funding that expand
housing options for the homeless and is trying to encourage local jurisdictions to create new
emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing resources. Modifying these
ordinances would expand the city’s options to implement new housing resources in different
zones throughout all districts of the city and broaden the city’s classifications of programs that
serve this population. Making these changes would allow staff to be more effective in
implementing programs to advance the city’s goal of reducing the unsheltered homelessness
population, among those who want help, by 50% within the next five years.
This option is also consistent with Program 2.13 of the city’s 2021-29 Housing Element, Housing
for Persons Experiencing Homelessness, in which the city has committed to continuing to
facilitate and assist with the acquisition and development of suitable sites for low-barrier
emergency shelters and transitional and permanent supportive housing for the homeless
population.
If directed by the City Council, staff would work to review the city’s existing Zoning Ordinance
and propose changes that would be the most beneficial for the entire community. The
evaluation process may take up to 18 months to complete and would need to be reviewed by
both the city’s Planning Commission and City Council before any changes could be adopted.
Additionally, all amendments affecting properties within the city’s coastal zone would need to
be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission, which will take additional
time beyond the 18 months noted above. It’s worth noting that many of the ordinances and
definitions were enacted in 2012 and could benefit from a comprehensive review.
Pros
• Zoning Ordinance amendments could give the city more flexibility to expand housing
resources and implement innovative homeless programs in the long-term.
• Zoning Ordinance amendments would allow the city to expand homeless housing
location options, which aligns with the City Council’s larger commitment to reducing the
homeless population by 50%, among those who want help, in the next five years.
• The city could ensure that its Zoning Ordinance is in complete compliance with current
State housing laws.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 13 of 31
Cons
• Expanding homeless housing location options may not have widespread community
support.
• Individual properties that provide emergency shelter, transitional housing and/or
supportive housing may be properly zoned, but they may not be ideally located near
needed transportation and services.
• Modifying the Zoning Ordinance takes a significant amount of time; it does not alleviate
the current need for emergency shelter beds and would not immediately reduce the
visible homeless population.
Option 6: Project Homekey funds
The State has recently released new funding for Project Homekey. This program provides
housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of
homelessness. The funding is available for local cities, counties and other local public entities to
purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and
other buildings and convert them into interim or permanent housing resources. The city could
apply independently or jointly with a nonprofit or for-profit corporation as a co-applicant.
The list of eligible Homekey uses are:
• Acquisition or rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation, of motels, hotels, hostels
or other sites and assets, including apartments or homes, adult residential facilities,
residential care facilities for the elderly, manufactured housing, commercial properties
and other buildings with existing uses that could be converted to permanent or interim
housing
• Master leasing of properties for non-congregate housing
• Conversion of units from nonresidential to residential
• New construction of dwelling units
• The purchase of affordability covenants and restrictions for units
The application process will begin Sept. 30, 2021, and the first round of applications must be
submitted by Jan. 31, 2022. After Jan. 31, 2022, applications will be considered on a first-come,
first-served basis until May 2, 2022, or when all funds are expected to be exhausted. All
operating funds must be fully spent by the recipient by no later than June 30, 2026.
This funding program is a helpful resource for increasing housing capacity for this population.
Timing is critical in obtaining these funds. Capital funds for acquisition and/or rehabilitation
must be expended within eight months of award and new construction must be spent within 12
months. While staff do not have a specific project identified for the use of these funds now,
staff could explore potential projects and develop a proposal for the City Council’s
consideration.
Pros
• This approach could leverage resources with a large source of dedicated, available state
funds.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 14 of 31
• These funds are rare and local municipalities have a unique opportunity to build
permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness.
• The funding could provide permanent housing resources to individuals experiencing or
at-risk of homelessness.
• The County of San Diego has supplemental funding for which cities can apply to help
provide supportive services for funded projects.
Cons
• The program requires applications to be submitted by Jan. 31, 2021, and, if awarded,
funds must be expended in a short time frame. Staff would have to shift priorities to
identify a potential project, since there is no specific project identified at this time.
• There is some community opposition to the Housing First model, which these funds
require.2
• The funding source would require the housing to be provided for people from other
jurisdictions in addition to Carlsbad residents.
Fiscal Analysis
The adopted fiscal year 2021-22 budget included $3.2 million for a hotel voucher program,
among other resources dedicated to addressing the City Council’s goal of reducing the
homeless unsheltered population, among those who want help, by 50% within five years. When
adopted, the city expected a portion of the funds, those expended prior to Sept. 30, 2021, to be
reimbursed by FEMA. FEMA’s reimbursement program has since been extended to Dec. 31,
2021. There are also other resources available that the City of Carlsbad may be able to pursue,
such as the homeless resources approved in the recent State of California budget.
To date, none of the $3.2 million in funding has been expended on this program, and the
balance could be repurposed to the alternate program options directed by the City Council. The
costs associated with the six presented options have been partially estimated at this time, as
noted above. Staff will return to the City Council with any and all necessary resolutions,
contracts, fund appropriations or work plan amendments necessary to implement the City
Council’s direction.
Next Steps
Based on the City Council direction given, staff will return to the City Council with any and all
necessary resolutions, contracts, fund appropriations or goal work plan amendments. Staff will
continue to provide quarterly updates to the City Council on the city’s progress toward meeting
the council’s goal to reduce homelessness in Carlsbad. Staff expect to provide the first quarterly
update in October.
2 Housing first is different from other approaches in that it doesn’t require people experiencing homelessness to
address their health, addiction and/or employment issues before they can obtain housing. Evidence has shown
that giving people such basics as food and a place to live provides them with the stable foundation they need so they can address other important life issues. For more information, see the federal government report, “The
Evidence Behind Approaches that Drive an End to Homelessness.”
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 15 of 31
Environmental Evaluation
In keeping with Public Resources Code section 21065, this receiving of this staff report does not
constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it
has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, so this activity is not subject to CEQA
pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3). This determination is predicated on Section 15004 of the
guidelines, which provide direction to lead agencies on the appropriate timing for
environmental review. It should be noted that future actions involving the listed options may
require preparation of an environmental review document in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines.
Public Notification and Outreach
This item was noticed in keeping with the state's Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for
public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City Council Resolution No. 2021-101 – Homeless Goal Work Plan
2. Government Code Sections 8698 – 8698.4 (on declaring a shelter crisis)
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 16 of 31
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE WORK PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF
GENERAL FUND RESERVES AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES TO ACHIEVE THE
CITY COUNCIL GOAL OF "REDUCING THE HOMELESS UNSHELTERED
POPULATION, AMONG THOSE WHO WANT HELP, BY 50 PERCENT WITHIN
FIVE YEARS"
WHEREAS, homelessness is a local, state, and national problem. Seventeen out of every 10,000
people or 567,715 total experienced homelessness in the United States in 2019 according to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
WHEREAS, California has the highest homeless population in the country with 151,278 people,
and the counties of Los Angeles (58,936), Santa Clara (9,706), and San Diego (8,102) all rank in the top
five across the United States; and
WHEREAS, recent estimates of the number of people experiencing homelessness in the City of
Carlsbad ranges between 147 and 507 'persons depending on data source; and
WHEREAS, these data only reflect the minimum scope of the problem and that, while the
magnitude of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on those at-risk or newly homeless are not fully
understood, the community impacts of homelessness in Carlsbad are acutely felt; and
WHEREAS, the City Council engaged in goal-setting workshops on Feb. 4, Feb. 11, and March 11,
2021 to establish strategic goals and develop short-term and long-term objectives in fulfillment of
those goals; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the City Council established a Fiscal Year 2021-22 priority goal
to "Reduce the homeless unsheltered population, among those who want help, by 50% within five
years, with quarterly reports until we decrease the unsheltered homeless population or five years,"
and directed staff to develop a work plan to achieve a set of specific objectives over the next 12 to 18
months toward achieving this goal; and
WHEREAS, parallel to the goal-setting process the City Council received a report on March 23,
2021, to consider possible programs to address homelessness in Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, after receiving the March 23, 2021 staff report and considering the various options
presented, the City Council approved the following program options with amendments:
0 Option 1 — Hire an employment and benefits specialist (program manager);
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 10 of 18
Exhibit 1
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 17 of 31
9 Option 2 — Hire one police sergeant and two police officers to be primarily deployed
on bike and foot patrol as homeless outreach officers providing additional four-day-a-
week coverage, and contract with a service provider for two additional social workers;
•Option 3 — Enhance clinical services at La Posada Emergency Shelter by entering into a
contract for two licensed clinicians;
•Option 4 — (A) Initiate a pilot hotel/motel voucher program for one year; (B) amend the
city's contract with the San Diego Humane Society to provide temporary shelter for
pets if necessary; (C) hire a program manager to administer the hotel/motel voucher
program and other homelessness-related programs and responsibilities;
•Option 5 — Increase contract amount for Community Resource Center services;
a Option 6 — Formation of a standing committee on homelessness; and
WHEREAS, these approved program options have been incorporated into a work plan as
Objectives 1-6 as described in Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, to successfully implement the City Council's goal of increasing the supply of available
affordable housing, while also developing and implementing the programs and services needed to
reduce homelessness levels by 50% within five years, the attached work plan includes Objective 7 to
create a new Housing and Homeless Services Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to begin immediate implementation of approved program
options to employ additional homeless outreach officers (Objective 2), initiate the hotel/motel voucher
pilot program (Objective 4) and hire a new director to start up a new Housing & Homeless Services
Department (Objective 7); and
WHEREAS, initiating work to reduce the homeless unsheltered population by 50% will achieve
savings by enabling the city to avoid future costs associated with calls for Police and Fire Department
services, emergency transports, the provision of homeless services, property cleaning and maintenance
activities, as well as the cost of potential fire risk associated with hornelessness.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.The above recitations are true and correct.
2.The City Council approves the work plan for Objectives 1 through 7 as reflected in
Attachment A and C;
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 11 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 18 of 31
3.The City Council finds that the one-time opportunity cost of $5,135,700 associated with
work described in the work plan will achieve savings by enabling the city to avoid future
costs associated with calls for Police and Fire Department services, emergency
transports, the provision of homeless services, property cleaning and maintenance
activities, as well as the cost of potential fire risk associated with homelessness.
4.The Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services, is authorized to appropriate
$435,700 of the unassigned General Fund reserve balance for one-time Fiscal Year
2020-2021 General Fund expenditures.
5.The Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services is authorized to assign $3,740,000 of
the unassigned General Fund reserve balance at fiscal year-end 2020-2021 to pay for
one-time opportunity costs as described in the work plan (Attachment A).
6.The City Manager is authorized to include in the city's FY 2021-2022 Preliminary
Operating Budget the $3,740,000 of one-time opportunity costs as well as the additional
budget necessary to carry out all the City Council approved program options described
in Work Plan Objectives 1-7 as reflected in Attachment B.
7, The City Manager is authorized to increase the city workforce by three new full-time
personnel, including a Police Sergeant and two Homeless Outreach Officers.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 4th day of May, 2021, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Blackburn, Acosta, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher.
NAYS: Hall.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
ICV1r.
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 12 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 19 of 31
Attachment A
Goal Reduce the homeless unsheltered population, among those who
want help, by SO% within five years, with quarterly reports until
we decrease the unsheltered homeless population or five years'.
Lead Community Development/ Police Department
Supporting City Attorney's Office Parks & Recreation
Communications Public Works
Finance City Clerk's Office
Human Resources City Manager's Office
Resource needs
Estimated
completion
•4 new positions (Community Services Branch)
•3 new positions (Police Department)
•Funding: See Attachment B to Exhibit 2: "Summary of Homeless
Workplan Objective Costs"
Refer to individual objectives
1. Employments and benefits specialist
Contract for services to help connect people to disability and social security benefits,
general relief, CalWORKS, CalFresh, Veterans benefits, stimulus checks, employment
programs, and other aid programs (March 23, 2021 City Council direction).
Tasks
•Develop scope of work for consultant services
o Two-year contract, no extensions
Operational in three to nine months
2. Additional homeless outreach officers and social workers
Expand the existing Homeless Outreach Team by adding one police sergeant and two
police officers, and pursue options for up to two additional social workers (March 23,
2021 City Council direction).
Tasks
•Homeless Outreach Team
o Promote an additional sergeant to the team
o Recruit for two new homeless outreach officers
o Develop roles, responsibility and deployment model for enhanced HOT
o Develop and provide necessary training
o Identify metrics for data collection
Operational within 30 days of funding authorization
1 As part of the established goal, the City Council adopted a series of related "goal points" that support and
provide additional information about the goal's intent. A Goal Point Priorities Matrix (Attachment C to
Exhibit 2) has been created that shows how the City Council goal points are being addressed through the
objectives of this workplan.
FY 2021-22 City Council Goals
Work Plan May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 13 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 20 of 31
•Social Workers
o Partner with the San Diego County for the duration of its North County
Homeless Pilot program2
Operational within three to six months
3. Enhancing clinical services at La Posada Emergency Shelter
Enter into an agreement with Catholic Charities to hire two licensed clinicians, and a third-
party consultant to provide its staff with training in order for the facility to operate as a
"low-barrier" shelter (March 23, 2021 City Council direction).
Tasks
•Develop scope of work for expanded consultant services
o Two licensed clinicians and additional training for staff
o Three-year contract, no extensions
Operational in three to nine months
4. Operate a Carlsbad hotel/motel voucher pilot program
Operate a 12-month pilot program in the City of Carlsbad that provides low-barrier
shelter for women, families, individuals living in encampments, high utilizers, individuals
with an underlining medical condition, and age 65+. Additionally, a 12-month case
management contract is required to help individuals find permanent housing resources
(March 23, 2021 City Council direction).
Tasks
•Hotel/motel voucher program
o Identify and partner with hotel/motel vendors
o Develop and implement service provider contract
o Develop and implement a supplemental case management contract
o Coordinate with the county on FEMA reimbursements
o Develop program rules, policies, and expectations
o Prepare public informational materials
Operational by June 2021. If this date cannot be met, additional City Council
direction will be requested.
Program manager
o Create a new position
o Develop budget and purchase resources
o Advertise, recruit, hire for the position
o Design program, forms, and eligibility criteria
o Develop a training program for the new position
Operational in three to nine months
•Animal contract
o Review animal shelter options
o Develop a contract for animal services
2 County Board of Supervisors' April 6, 2021 Meeting Agenda, Item #7: Pilot Program to Address
Homelessness in North County San Diego (Districts: 3 & 5)
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 14 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 21 of 31
o Establish program criteria, rules, and forms
Operational in three to six months
5. Community Resource Center services
Contract with Community Resource Center to implement a rapid rehousing program for
households currently experiencing homelessness in the City of Carlsbad (March 23, 2021
City Council direction).
Tasks
•Contract with the Community Resource Center
o Develop scope of work for services
o Two-year contract with three, one-year extensions
•Revise policies and procedures based on lessons learned from year one
Operational in three to six months
6. Homeless Action Subcommittee
Provide staff support to a homeless action subcommittee comprised of two City
Councilmembers that will focus on local and regional issues related to homelessness
(March 23, 2021 City Council direction).
Tasks
•Schedule first meeting —target May 2021
•Staff support
Operational in one to two months
7. Create a new Housing & Homeless Services Department
The League of California Cities ranks affordable housing and homelessness as the top
issues facing all local governments across the State of California. To successfully
implement the City Council's goal of increasing the supply of available affordable
housing, while also developing and implementing the programs and services needed to
reduce homeless levels by 50% within five years, a new department within the
Community Services Branch with the necessary technical expertise and leadership is
needed, for the following reasons:
•Leadership and staffing singularly focused on housing and homeless services
•Ensures appropriate oversight and a reasonable span of control to achieve the
mission
•Confirms focused attention on a critical need
•Strengthens collaboration and coordination with outside agencies
•Pairs complementary functions (housing and homeless) to improve internal
collaboration, communications and resource management
•Ensures that the 5-year City Council Homeless Goal can be achieved
•Centralizes the expertise and programing needed to advance individuals and
families through the full spectrum — from homelessness to fully housed and self-
sufficiency
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 15 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 22 of 31
Tasks
•Create new positions (director, housing services manager and management
analyst)
.Develop budget and purchase resources
•Advertise, recruit, hire the new positions
Operational in approximately six months
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 16 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 23 of 31
Summary of Homeless Workplan Objective Costs Attachment B
GOAL OBJECTIVE
Proposed Staffing/Program
FY
2020-21
FY
2021-22
FY
2022-23
FY
2023-24
FY
2024-25
FY
2025-26 TOTAL
1.Employments & Benefits Specialist
Contract Services
$120,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $240,000
Operational expenses
$20,0006 $20,0006 $0 $0 $0 $40,0006
2.Additional Homeless Outreach Team
Officers & Social Workers
Homeless Outreach Team staffing $330,1172,3 $614,9842 $645,7332 $678,0202 $711,9211,2 $747,5172 $3,728,2922,3
Social workers (Co. of SD Pilot Program)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
3.Enhancing Clinical Services at La Posada
Emergency Shelter
Agreement with Catholic Charities
$180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $540,000
4.Operate a Carlsbad Hotel/Motel Voucher
Pilot Program
Hotel/Motel Voucher Program4 $260,0006 $2,940,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
Program Manager
$123,795' $124,735' $130,971' $137,520' $144,396" $661,417"
Animal services contract
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
5.Community Resource Center Services
Agreement with CRC
$350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000
6.Homeless Action Subcommittee
Program Costs
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.Create a new Housing and Homeless
Services Department
Director $20,593 $247,1131 $259,469' $272,442" $286,064' $300,368" $1,386,049'
Housing Services Manager.
$182,2261 $186,0871 $195,392" $205,161' $215,419" $984,2851
Management Analyst
$123,795" $124,735" $130,971' $137,5201 $144,396" $661,4171
TOTAL $610,710 $4,901,913 $2,010,759 $1,587,796 $1,478,186 $1,552,096 $12,141,460
'Mid-range personnel costs (salary, benefits) plus one-time equipment purchases in FY2021-22 (Director position reflects upper-range). Personnel cost increased 5% per year.
2 Personnel costs for one sergeant and two officers (salary, benefits, overtime, vehicle replacement). Personnel costs increased 5% per year.
3 Reflects two months personnel costs plus one-time equipment purchases.
4 Voucher related expenses potentially 100% reimbursable through FEMA/Project RoonnKey until September 30, 2021, which would proportionally reduce city costs.
5 One month estimated program cost. Any unexpended amount to carry forward to FY 2021-22.
6 Covers expenses helping individuals secure employment such as bus passes, clothing vouchers, background checks, printing.
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 17 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 24 of 31
GOAL POINT MATRIX Attachment C
How Each Workplan Objective Addresses the City Council's Goal Point Priorities
City Council Goal:
Reduce the homeless unsheltered population, among those who want help, by 50% within five years, with quarterly reports until we decrease the
unsheltered homeless population or five years.
City Council Work Plan Objectives
Goal Point Priorities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fully fund, staff and implement the city's Homeless Response Plan • • • • • • •
Create specific and measurable targets and timelines for reducing homelessness (within first year or two) • • • • • • •
Preventing and ending homelessness among youth and veterans • • • • • • •
Increase social services/social workers • • • • • • •
Partner with county • •
•
• •
Work with entities with our city (region) to increase transitions to permanent supportive housing • •
• • • •
Advocate for legislative changes needed to effectively address homelessness
• •
Prevent homelessness by supporting those at risk of becoming homeless/losing their housing • •
• •
Work through a regional group to develop regional action plan that includes integrated services within/among cities
• •
Develop an encampment policy
•
• •
Focus on trauma informed care • • • • • • •
Focus on aggressive individuals to address their needs (substance abuse, mental health, other) • • • • • • •
Explore expansion of La Posada
•
• •
Complete financial analysis to identify opportunities for quickest results
• •
No visible encampments • • • • • • •
Identify city and regional goals
•
• •
Emphasize affordable housing
• •
1. Employments & Benefits Specialist; 2. Additional Homeless Outreach Team Officers & Social Workers; 3. Enhancing Clinical Services at La Posada Emergency Shelter;
4. Operate a Carlsbad Hotel/Motel Voucher Pilot Program; 5. Community Resource Center Services; 6. Homeless Action Subcommittee; 7. Housing and Homeless
Services Department
May 4, 2021 Item #10 Page 18 of 18Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 25 of 31
9/21/21, 4:10 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=1.&chapter=7.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=2 1/6
Code:Select Code Section:1 or 2 or 1001 Search
8698.
8698.1.
Up^Add To My Favorites
GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [8000 - 22980] ( Title 2 enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )
DIVISION 1. GENERAL [8000 - 8899.72] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )
CHAPTER 7.8. Shelter Crisis [8698 - 8698.4] ( Chapter 7.8 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1116, Sec. 2. )
For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)“Political subdivision” includes the state, any city, city and county, county, special district, or school district or
public agency authorized by law.
(b)“Governing body” means the following:
(1)The Governor for the state.
(2)The legislative body for a city or city and county.
(3)The board of supervisors for a county.
(4)The governing board or board of trustees for a district or other public agency.
(5)An official designated by ordinance or resolution adopted by a governing body, as defined in paragraph (2), (3),
or (4).
(c)“Public facility” means any facility of a political subdivision including parks, schools, and vacant or underutilized
facilities which are owned, operated, leased, or maintained, or any combination thereof, by the political subdivision
through money derived by taxation or assessment.
(d)“Declaration of a shelter crisis” means the duly proclaimed existence of a situation in which a significant number
of persons are without the ability to obtain shelter, resulting in a threat to their health and safety.
(e)“Emergency bridge housing community” means any new or existing facilities, including, but not limited to,
housing in temporary structures, including, but not limited to, emergency sleeping cabins consistent with the
requirements of subdivision (h) of Section 8698.3 that are reserved for homeless persons and families, together
with community support facilities, including, but not limited to, showers and bathrooms adequate to serve the
anticipated number of residents all of which may be located on property leased or owned by a political subdivision.
An emergency bridge housing community shall include supportive and self-sufficiency development services, have
the ultimate goal of moving homeless persons to permanent housing as quickly as reasonably possible, and limit
rents and service fees to an ability-to-pay formula reasonably consistent with the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s requirements for subsidized housing for low-income persons.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 691, Sec. 1. (AB 2176) Effective January 1, 2017.)
Upon a declaration of a shelter crisis, the following provisions shall apply during the period of the
emergency.
(a)The political subdivision shall be immune from liability for ordinary negligence in the provision of emergency
housing pursuant to Section 8698.2. This limitation of liability shall apply only to conditions, acts, or omissions
directly related to, and which would not occur but for, the provision of emergency housing. This section does not
limit liability for grossly negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct which causes injury.
(b)The provisions of any state or local regulatory statute, regulation, or ordinance prescribing standards of
housing, health, or safety shall be suspended to the extent that strict compliance would in any way prevent, hinder,
or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis. Political subdivisions may, in place of such standards,
enact municipal health and safety standards to be operative during the housing emergency consistent with ensuring
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
Exhibit 2
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 26 of 31
9/21/21, 4:10 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=1.&chapter=7.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=2 2/6
8698.2.
8698.3.
minimal public health and safety. The provisions of this section apply only to additional public facilities open to the
homeless pursuant to this chapter.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (4), a city with a population of more than 3,500,000 may permit the operation of an
emergency housing facility year round when the facility does not comply with state building standards for local fire
and life safety standards if they submit reasonable standards to the State Fire Marshal that, at a minimum, do all of
the following:
(A) Require an emergency housing facility to be subject to the building standards related to fire and life safety that
the state and local regulations require for existing residential occupancies, and the building standards related to fire
and life safety for a new residential use that were in effect at the time the building was constructed.
(B) Provide reasonable alternative fire and life safety standards that, a minimum, include all of the following:
(i) A maximum occupant load of 49. However, the fire department may propose an occupant load greater than 49,
but not to exceed 150, if the city can demonstrate that the facility can safely permit the proposed occupant load.
(ii) Twenty-four-hour active fire watch.
(iii) Smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
(iv) Fire extinguishers.
(v) Ingress and egress that facilitates rapid exit of the facility.
(vi) Emergency evacuation signage and emergency egress lighting.
(vii) Every egress shall be free from storage and other obstructions.
(viii) Limited occupant storage in each room in the facility.
(ix) Prohibiting the use of open flames or combustibles.
(x) Prohibiting smoking in the facility.
(xi) Fire code inspection plans that occur in intervals of 30 days or less that includes authorization for the fire
department to shut down the facility for major or multiple violations.
(xii) A process for remedying fire code violations immediately.
(xiii) A process for submitting quarterly inspection reports to the State Fire Marshal.
(2) The State Fire Marshal shall review the standards within 30 days and either approve them or respond as to why
the city does not meet the threshold requirements. If the standards do not meet the threshold requirements, the
city shall not use them.
(3) A facility shall be permitted pursuant to this subdivision for a maximum of 90 days with 90-day extensions
permitted, not to exceed 730 days of continuous operation.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, the term “building standard” means a building standard as defined in Section
18909 of the Health and Safety Code or other standard adopted by a local agency pursuant to Section 17958 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(5) No new permits shall be authorized pursuant to this subdivision on and after January 1, 2023. However, a
facility that was issued a permit before January 1, 2023, may continue to operate after that date pursuant to a 90-
day extension of the permit, and may receive consecutive 90-day extensions to operate until December 31, 2024,
subject to the 730-day limit specified in paragraph (3).
(Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 148, Sec. 2. (AB 2960) Effective January 1, 2021.)
(a) (1) The governing body may declare a shelter crisis, and may take such action as is necessary to carry
out the provisions of this chapter, upon a finding by that governing body that a significant number of persons within
the jurisdiction of the governing body are without the ability to obtain shelter, and that the situation has resulted in
a threat to the health and safety of those persons.
(2) For purposes of this chapter, the governing body of the state, in making a declaration of a shelter crisis
pursuant to paragraph (1), may limit that declaration to any geographical portion of the state.
(b) Upon a declaration of a shelter crisis pursuant to subdivision (a), the political subdivision may allow persons
unable to obtain housing to occupy designated public facilities during the duration of the state of emergency.
(Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1116, Sec. 2. Effective September 25, 1987.)
Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of
San Jose, the following shall apply during a shelter crisis:Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 27 of 31
9/21/21, 4:10 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=1.&chapter=7.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=2 3/6
(a) Emergency housing may include an emergency bridge housing community for the homeless located or
constructed on any city-owned or city-leased land, including land acquired with low- and moderate-income housing
funds.
(b) (1) The city, in lieu of compliance with state and local building, housing, health, habitability, or safety standards
and laws, may adopt by ordinance reasonable local standards for the design, site development, and operation of
emergency bridge housing communities and the structures and facilities therein, to the extent that it is determined
at the time of adoption that strict compliance with state and local standards or laws in existence at the time of that
adoption would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis. The
Department of Housing and Community Development shall review the city’s draft ordinance to ensure it addresses
minimum health and safety standards. The department shall, as set forth in Section 9795 of the Government Code,
provide its findings to the Senate and Assembly housing committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee within 30
calendar days of receiving the draft ordinance.
(2) During the shelter crisis, except as provided in this section, provisions of any state or local building, housing,
health, habitability, or safety standards or laws shall be suspended for the emergency bridge housing communities
provided that the city has adopted health and safety standards for emergency bridge housing communities
consistent with ensuring minimal risk to public health and safety and those standards are complied with. Landlord
tenant laws codified in Sections 1941 to 1942.5, inclusive, of the Civil Code providing a cause of action for
habitability or tenantability, shall be suspended for the emergency bridge housing communities provided that the
city has adopted health and safety standards for emergency bridge housing communities and those standards are
complied with. During the shelter crisis, the local and state law requirements for an emergency bridge housing
project to be consistent with the local land use plans, including the general plan, shall be suspended.
(3) This section applies only to a public facility or an emergency bridge housing community reserved for the
homeless pursuant to this chapter.
(c) An emergency bridge housing community constructed or allowed under this chapter shall not be subject to the
Special Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety
Code), the Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division 13 of the Health and
Safety Code), or the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of
Division 2 of the Civil Code).
(d) An emergency bridge housing community that complies with the applicable requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
325), shall be exempt from Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 54) of Division 1 of the Civil Code and actions
thereunder for the duration of the shelter crisis.
(e) The city shall match each resident of an emergency bridge housing community to an affordable housing unit
identified in the city’s housing plan that shall be available for the resident to live in on or before January 1, 2025.
(f) On or before July 1, 2017, the city shall develop a plan for every emergency bridge housing community to
include onsite supportive services. The city shall make the report publicly available.
(g) On or before January 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, the city shall report to the Legislature the number of
residents in every emergency bridge housing community, the number of residents who have moved from an
emergency bridge housing community into permanent affordable housing, the average time required for a resident
to receive a permanent affordable housing unit, and the actual and projected number of permanent affordable
housing units available through January 1, 2025.
(h) An “emergency sleeping cabin” means a relocatable hard-sided structure that may be used for occupancy only
pursuant to Section 8698 and this section. It shall have a raised floor area of no less than 120 square feet of
interior space for two occupants and a minimum of 70 square feet of interior space for one occupant. It shall
contain no plumbing or gas service. An emergency sleeping cabin shall meet a minimum of a 20 pounds per square
foot live load roof structure, shall be provided light, heat, and ventilation, and shall comply with minimum
emergency bridge housing design standards as follows:
(1) Electrical power available as needed to meet the light and heat requirements of this subdivision. The source of
electricity may be solar power.
(2) At least one interior lighting fixture.
(3) Electrical heating equipment approved for residential use.
(4) Means of ventilation allowing for adequate air replacement.
(5) At least one GFCI-protected receptacle for use by the occupant or occupants.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 28 of 31
9/21/21, 4:10 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=1.&chapter=7.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=2 4/6
8698.4.
(6) At least two forms of egress placed remotely from each other, one of which may be an egress window with a sill
height of not more than 44 inches from the floor, a minimum net opening height of 24 inches, and a minimum
width of 20 inches.
(7) A privacy lock on each door.
(8) When required to meet accessibility requirements, compliance with the applicable requirements specified in
Chapter 11B of the California Building Code.
(9) One permanently wired smoke alarm with battery backup, listed and labeled in accordance with UL 217,
installed in accordance with the California Residential Code and NFPA 72. Battery powered alarms are permissible in
lieu of wired alarms only when the cabin is solar powered and other electrical service is not supplied to the cabin.
Smoke alarms shall be listed and approved by the State Fire Marshal.
(10) This subdivision shall remain operative until the date on which the California Building Standards Commission
includes standards in the California Building Standards Code that conform to this subdivision.
(i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 342, Sec. 1. (AB 1745) Effective January 1, 2020. Repealed as of January 1, 2025, by its own
provisions.)
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by a city,
county, or city and county, the following shall apply to the respective city, county, or city and county during the
shelter crisis:
(1) Emergency housing may include homeless shelters for the homeless located or constructed on any land owned
or leased by a city, county, or city and county, including land acquired with low- and moderate-income housing
funds.
(2) (A) (i) The city, county, or city and county, in lieu of compliance with local building approval procedures or state
housing, health, habitability, planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, and laws, may adopt by
ordinance reasonable local standards and procedures for the design, site development, and operation of homeless
shelters and the structures and facilities therein, to the extent that it is determined at the time of adoption that
strict compliance with state and local standards or laws in existence at the time of that adoption would in any way
prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis. For a jurisdiction that adopts an
ordinance establishing reasonable local standards, those standards shall, at a minimum, meet the standards
provided in the 2019 California Residential Code Appendix X, and California Building Code Appendix O, and any
future standards adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development related to emergency
housing or emergency housing facilities, unless the city, county, or city and county adopts findings stating why the
standards cannot be met and stating how the standards in the ordinance protect health and safety. Upon the
adoption of an ordinance, the city, county, or city and county shall file a copy of the adopted ordinance, and any
associated findings, with the department.
(ii) During the shelter crisis, except as provided in this section, provisions of any housing, health, habitability,
planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, or laws shall be suspended for homeless shelters, provided
that the city, county, or city and county has adopted health and safety standards and procedures for homeless
shelters consistent with ensuring minimal public health and safety and those standards are complied with. Landlord
tenant laws codified in Sections 1941 to 1942.5, inclusive, of the Civil Code providing a cause of action for
habitability or tenantability shall be suspended for homeless shelters, provided that the city, county, or city and
county has adopted health and safety standards for homeless shelters and those standards are complied with.
During the shelter crisis, the local and state law requirements for homeless shelters to be consistent with the local
land use plans, including the general plan, shall be suspended.
(B) This section applies only to a public facility or homeless shelters reserved entirely for the homeless pursuant to
this chapter.
(3) Homeless shelters constructed or allowed under this chapter shall not be subject to the Special Occupancy
Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), the
Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code),
the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the
Civil Code), or the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of
Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), except that disposition of any vehicle or its contents abandoned by
its owner shall be performed pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1980) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division
3 of the Civil Code.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 29 of 31
9/21/21, 4:10 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=1.&chapter=7.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=2 5/6
(4) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code) shall not apply to actions taken by a state agency or a city, county, or city and county, to lease, convey, or
encumber land owned by a city, county, or city and county, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance
of land owned by the local government for, or to provide financial assistance to, a homeless shelter constructed or
allowed by this section.
(5) (A) On or before July 1, 2019, the Cities of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego, the
County of Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco shall develop a plan to address the shelter crisis,
including, but not limited to, the development of homeless shelters and permanent supportive housing, as well as
onsite supportive services. The city, county, or city and county shall make the plan publicly available.
(B) In the case of a shelter crisis declared by the County of Alameda, a city located within the County of Alameda,
the County of Orange, a city located within the County of Orange, or the City of San Jose, the county or the city, as
applicable, shall develop the plan described in subparagraph (A) on or before July 1, 2020, and shall include in the
plan required by this subparagraph a plan to transition residents from homeless shelters to permanent housing.
(C) In the case of a shelter crisis declared by any other county or city not described in subparagraph (A) or (B) on
or before January 1, 2021, the county or the city, as applicable, shall develop the plan described in subparagraph
(A) on or before July 1, 2021, and shall include in the plan required by this subparagraph a plan to transition
residents from homeless shelters to permanent housing.
(D) In the case of a shelter crisis declared by any other county or city not described in subparagraph (A) or (B)
after January 1, 2021, the county or the city, as applicable, shall develop the plan described in subparagraph (A) on
or before July 1 of the year following the declaration of the shelter crisis, and shall include in the plan required by
this subparagraph a plan to transition residents from homeless shelters to permanent housing.
(6) If the city, county, or city and county has declared a shelter crisis, the city, county, or city and county shall
report, by January 1 of each year, all of the following to the Senate Committee on Housing and the Assembly
Committee on Housing and Community Development:
(A) The total number of residents in homeless shelters within the city, county, or city and county.
(B) The total number of residents who have moved from a homeless shelter into permanent supportive housing
within the city, county, or city and county.
(C) The estimated number of permanent supportive housing units.
(D) The number of residents who have exited the system and are no longer in need of a homeless shelter or
permanent supportive housing within the city, county, or city and county.
(E) The number and bed capacity of new homeless shelters built pursuant to this section within the city, county, or
city and county. The information regarding the bed capacity shall be included in reports due by January 1, 2022,
and by January 1 of each year thereafter. Bed capacity shall not include the parking vehicle capacity of a homeless
shelter on a parking lot owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county specifically identified as one allowed
for safe parking by homeless and unstably housed individuals.
(F) New actions the city, county, or city and county is taking under the declared shelter crisis to better serve the
homeless population and to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness.
(G) The ordinance and any associated findings adopted by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to
paragraph (2).
(b) A declaration of a shelter crisis by a city, county, or city and county and the provisions in this section that are or
may be utilized by a city, county, or city and county, including an ordinance adopted by a city, county, or city and
county pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), shall apply to any land owned
or leased by an agency or entity created pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with
Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) if the city, county, or city and county that declared a
shelter crisis is one of the parties to the agreement creating the entity or agency and the real property owned or
leased by the agency or entity is located within the jurisdiction of the city, county, or city and county that declared
the shelter crisis.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Homeless shelter” means a facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which is to
provide temporary shelter for the homeless that is not in existence after the declared shelter crisis. A temporary
homeless shelter community may include supportive and self-sufficiency development services. A “homeless
shelter” shall include a parking lot owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county specifically identified as one
allowed for safe parking by homeless and unstably housed individuals.
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 30 of 31
9/21/21, 4:10 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=1.&chapter=7.8.&lawCode=GOV&title=2 6/6
(2) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing for people who are homeless, with no limit on length of stay,
and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing,
improving the person’s health status, and maximizing the person’s ability to live and, when possible, work in the
community.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.
(Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 147, Sec. 1. (AB 2553) Effective September 25, 2020. Repealed as of January 1, 2026, by its
own provisions.)
Sept. 28, 2021 Item #8 Page 31 of 31
September 27,
ATTN: Mayor Matt Hall and City Council
RE: 8. OPTIONS FOR THE CARLSBAD HOTEL/MOTEL VOUCHER PILOT
PROGRAM
Is the City of Carlsbad a more desirable and safer place to live now than 5 years
ago?
Answer -NO!
Is the City of Carlsbad a more desirable and safer place to live now that 3 years
ago?
Answer -NO!
Is the City of Carlsbad a more desirable and safer place to live now than 1 year
ago?
Answer-NO!
Is the City of Carlsbad a more desirable and safer place to live now than 1 week
ago?
Answer-NO!
Why is Carlsbad a less desirable and less safe? HOMELESS INVADING THE CITY
Subcommittees make sense, if their recommendations lead to actions. The City
does not need to spend any more money on paid bureaucratic jobs. These
positions filled by people that need a homeless population for job security.
Homeless is a big business. Millions of dollars in Federal grant money, State and
City expenditures has fed the homeless explosion beast.
Homelessness will not be solved by making it easier and more acceptable for
people to live a homeless life style. We now have thousands of people living in
California who have decided to use the system and choose to live homeless.
Every decision made that enables people to be homeless by free food, hotel
vouchers, clothing, access to showers may make people feel good about
themselves, but does nothing to tackle the issue of the chronic homeless. Any
solution that does not include mandatory sobriety, drug and alcohol
rehabilitation as a condition to assistance will fail. Martin vs Boise has no
requirements for food, clothing, transportation or a myriad of other services the
homeless now receive for FREE. This is the Homeless Beast created by big
business and big government which has turned the homeless population into a
big money maker for some. People wonder why the homeless problem grows.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
A common sense immediate action for Carlsbad is a Shopping Cart Ordinance.
The shopping carts in the possession of the homeless are stolen property. The
cart theft is now just too low level an offense for the DA to bother with
prosecution. Even though the shopping carts are very expensive ($750-$1,200)
for the business owner to replace. Who really pays? The consumer pays in
higher prices to cover the theft. Our parks, sidewalks, streets inundated with
shopping carts piled high. There is no excuse not to pass a tough shopping cart
ordinance. The excuse ... "the homeless will find something else to use" ... is not
good enough.
We need to protect business owners and the quality of life in Carlsbad. The
burden of the ordinance should not be placed on business owners. It should fall
on the person with the stolen property in their possession. Carlsbad is spending
millions to address the homeless impact. A crave out of funds for this issue is
essential to reclaim the City. After law enforcement has found an individual
with a shopping cart outside the area where the cart belongs or permitted,
budget for a team to pick up the cart and a place to store until reclaimed by the
business owner. The person with the cart can carry away what they want to
retain, anything else bagged up for 30 days for them to retrieve. Once 30 days is
passed, the items are disposed. Without access to shopping carts, many
homeless will find their lifestyle less attractive. Perhaps a key to encouraging a
person to look at better options than homelessness.
As to the appointment, the major homeless impact is in District 1, so it only
makes sense to appoint Councilman Peder Norby. This is also supported by the
clear lack of interest in the homeless crisis in downtown Carlsbad by Council
members Priya Bhat Patel and Teresa Acosta.
Please Take Action!
Katie Taylor
Taylor Place Real Estate, Inc
760-803-1681
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Greg Anglea <ganglea@interfaithservices.org>
Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:45 AM
City Clerk
9/28 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8: Options for the Carlsbad Hotel/Motel Voucher
Pilot Program
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Interfaith Community Services commends the City of Carlsbad for the thoughtfulness and resources staff and Council are
directing and considering to address homelessness. It is clear from both the staff report and lnterfaith's own experience
operating a successful motel shelter program in Carlsbad in 2020 that any shelter and supportive services intervention
requires careful planning, skilled and experienced onsite professional oversight, and considerable resources to fund.
In our experience there may be unsheltered individuals who could benefit from some of the short-term options
presented, but without the extensive onsite supportive services those successes may be limited and/or short-
lived. Options 1 & 3 are most cost-effective; but least likely to be successful. Option 2 is more likely to succeed, but will
come at a large expense.
We fully support Option 4: expansion of current La Posada shelter site. Investing in proven-effective and already
located services makes sense. With current La Posada men's beds full, and no shelter for women or families in Carlsbad,
expansion of shelter should be a top priority.
We also fully support Option 6: exploration of Project Home Key funds to create needed permanent supportive housing
within Carlsbad. Timing is very short to identify and submit a project for the current Project Home Key funding cycle, but
Interfaith Community Services is working with other North County cities and the County of San Diego, along with
affordable housing developers, on Project HomeKey opportunities, and we would gladly work with the City of
Carlsbad to explore options.
Homelessness is complicated. In out 40+ years of experience doing this work, last year working with more than 20,000
neighbors in need throughout North County, homelessness is the result of all of the problems within our society:
childhood traumas, persistent poverty, lack of education, domestic violence, alcohol and drug use, physical health and
mental health, high cost of housing, and more. There are no simple solutions, and there are no short-term quick fixes to
address these systemic challenges.
We again commend the City for its dedication to addressing these complicated issues. We will continue to work with
the city and all of our partners, including 150+ faith communities, 230+ professional employees, and 2,000+ volunteers,
to Help People Help Themselves.
In addition to the recommendations above, we also strongly urge the City of Carlsbad to work in partnership with the
other North County cities on homelessness. A working group of representatives from the City Manager offices of each
North County city, working in partnership with the Alliance for Regional Solutions, the Regional Taskforce on the
Homeless, and the County of San Diego, can most cohesively leverage and increase the positive impact of the
significant and laudable investments the City of Carlsbad is making to address these issues.
Visible street homelessness is not only on the rise in Carlsbad . It is increasing in every city in North County. Our
problems are not unique to the Village or to our City, they are part of a regional problem which requires regional
coordination and action.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David Hall <dqhall44@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 28, 2021 10:21 AM
City Clerk
Re: PAC
Yes, that is correct. Today's meeting please. Items #3, #8, #9. Thank you.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:17 AM City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca .gov> wrote:
All Receive -Agenda Item# 3
For the lnform;;ition of the:
COUNCIL
Date CA .,,-CC / --CM .rACM /DCM (3) £
Please clarify if this email is for the record for today's meeting and which items you are
referencing.
Kind regards,
Tammy McMinn, CPMC, CMC
Senior Deputy City Clerk
1 City of Carlsbad
760-434-2953
From: David Hall [mailto:dqhall44@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 202110:09 AM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Diana Aguirre <dra805@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: PAC
I ----------Forwarded message---------
, From: David Hall <dqhall44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 8:57 AM
1 Subject: PAC
To: <info@demcco.org>
1
HOTEL VOUCHER
PROGRAM OPTIONS
Mandy Mills, Director
Housing & Homeless Services
Holly Nelson, Senior Program Manager
Housing & Homeless Services
Sept. 28, 2021
{city of
Carlsbad
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
Report on barriers staff has encountered
in developing a pilot hotel voucher
program
Present new options for City Council’s
consideration
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
ITEM 8
{city of
Carlsbad
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
Quality of life ordinance package
New options for camping restrictions
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
ITEM 9
{city of
Carlsbad
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Reduce homeless unsheltered population, among
those who want help, by 50% within five years,
with quarterly reports until we decrease the
unsheltered homeless population or five years
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
HOMELESS RESPONSE PLAN
{city of
Carlsbad
HOTEL VOUCHER PROGRAM
•Helps people transition into permanent
housing
•Allows the city to more readily enforce certain
laws that can only be applied if shelter has
been offered and refused
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
La Posada
50 beds
emergency shelter 147
Point in Time Count
LOCAL SHELTERS
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
53 sheltered
94 unsheltered
LOCAL SHELTERS
144
Emergency beds
in North County
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
721
North County Unsheltered
Point in Time Count
HOTEL VOUCHER PROGRAM
•Proposed 12-month pilot program
•Eligibility criteria
•FEMA funding reimbursement
•“Low barrier” model
•Wraparound, onsite services
•Transition to permanent housing
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
PUBLIC INPUT
•4 Town Hall meetings and online survey
•Concerns about “Housing First” approach
•What locations would be appropriate?
•Will more people come here?
•Take advantage of the system
•Skepticism about voucher programs
•Belief that many do not want help
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
HOTEL VOUCHER PROGRAM
•Used evidence-based research, experts in
the field, community, and “lessons learned”
•No illegal drug use
•Program expectations and accountability
•Screening for level of need
•Data collection and outcome metrics
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
CHALLENGES
Land use/zoningHigher occupancy Community concern
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
1 Short-term option 2 Mid-term options
3Long-term options {city of
Carlsbad
HOTEL VOUCHER OPTION #1
Limited-Term Stay Emergency Hotel Voucher Pilot
•City discretion to offer an immediate hotel voucher
•Homeless Outreach Team would try to connect to services the next morning
•12-month pilot and data gathering
•Evaluate and report out quarterly
•Use $100,000 from previously approved hotel voucher program
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
HOTEL VOUCHER OPTION #2
Emergency Shelter Voucher Program at the Hyland Inn
•Requires shelter crisis declaration (or zoning amendment)
•Shelter declaration requires entire site used for homeless shelter
•Wraparound supportive services onsite
•Onsite security
•Longer stays (30 days to 6 mos.) to allow time to obtain
permanent housing alternative
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
HOTEL VOUCHER OPTION #3
Scattered Site Hotel Voucher Program
•Limited number of persons housed at each hotel
•Stays for up to 30 days/site
•Offsite supportive services
•Longer stays (30 days to 6 mos.) to allow time to obtain
permanent housing alternative
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
LONG-TERM OPTIONS
4. Assist expansion of La Posada
•Potential capital support needed for expansion to include women and women w/ children
5. Amend Zoning Ordinance
•To increase use and location options
6. Pursue Project Homekey funds
•Potential funding source for creation of additional permanent
units. Intended for interim and permanent housing
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
{city of
Carlsbad
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
1. Limited-Term Stay Emergency Hotel Voucher Pilot YES/NO
2. Emergency Shelter
Voucher Program at the
Hyland Inn
OR NEITHER
4. Assist expansion of La Posada
5. Amend Zoning Ordinance
6. Pursue Project Homekey funds
ANY OR ALL
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
SHORT-TERMMID-TERMLONG TERM3. Scattered Site
Hotel Voucher
Program OR
Quality of Life Ordinance
Package (Amended)
Marissa Kawecki,
Deputy City Attorney
Sept. 28, 2021
{city of
Carlsbad
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
Quality of life ordinance package
New options for camping restrictions
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
ITEM 9
{city of
Carlsbad
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Introduce ordinance Option 2 (Exhibit C) to amend Title 8 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to address quality of life concerns related to
homelessness and public spaces
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
{city of
Carlsbad
PURPOSE AND INTENT
•Add enforcement options that align with the city’s Homeless
Response Plan and the City Council’s goal
•Respond to community feedback and address concerns with public
peace, safety, health and the environment
•Use a balanced approach with enforcement and resources that
continually strives to link people experiencing homelessness to
recommended resources
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
{city of
Carlsbad
PROPOSED CHANGES
•Amend Chapter 8.36 (“Camping on Public Property”)
•Amend Section 8.28.050 (“Distribution or solicitation to persons in
vehicles”)
•Add a new Chapter 8.34 (“Solicitation”)
•Add a new Chapter 8.38 (“Obstruction of Property, Trespass, and
Disorderly Conduct”)
•Amend Section 8.44.040 (“Consuming or possessing an open
container of alcoholic beverages in certain public places and parks
owned by the city prohibited”)
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
{city of
Carlsbad
Amended Chapter 8.36 “Unlawful Camping, Fires on Public Property, and Storage of Property”
•Expands definitions section to aid in enforcement
•Amends public camping ordinance to comply with
Martin v. Boise
•Prohibits camping on open space property and
private property (limited private property
exceptions)
•Prohibits fires and cooking on public property
•Prohibits storage or leaving unattended personal
property in public areas
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
Martin v. Boise legal considerations
•Camping citation: A jurisdiction has more shelter beds than homeless persons
OR
•Camping citation: A person has “access” to adequate temporary shelter,
whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically
available to them for “free” and the person refuses such shelter
ADDITIONALLY:
•Camping or other citation:An ordinance prohibits sitting, lying or sleeping
outside at particular times or in particular locations
•Camping or other citation: An ordinance bars the obstruction of public rights
of way or the erection of certain structures
Presented at 9/14/21 City Council meeting
A.Public property
1.It is unlawful for any person to camp between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
in or upon any public street, public park, public beach, or other public place,
except in areas which have been specifically posted, designated, or permitted
for such purposes.
2.Notwithstanding Section 8.36.030(A)(1), it is unlawful for any person to:
a.Camp or sleep in open space at any time.
b.Camp or sleep at any time and in any location of the city if the person realistically has
access to temporary or permanent shelter where the person can sleep and willfully
refuses such shelter for any reason unrelated to the exercise of a state or federal
constitutional right.
(cont.)
Council direction on language presented at 9/14/21 City Council meeting
A.Public property
1.It is unlawful for any person to camp between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
in or upon any public street, public park, public beach, or other public place,
except in areas which have been specifically posted, designated, or permitted
for such purposes.
2.Notwithstanding Section 8.36.030(A)(1), it is unlawful for any person to:
a.Camp or sleep in open space at any time.
b.Camp or sleep at any time and in any location of the city if the person realistically has
access to temporary or permanent shelter where the person can sleep and willfully
refuses such shelter for any reason unrelated to the exercise of a state or federal
constitutional right.
(cont.)
OPTION 1A
A.Public property
1.It is unlawful for any person to:
a. Camp or sleep in open space at any time.
b.Camp or sleep at any time and in any location of the city if the person
has access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have
the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for
free, and the person willfully refuses such shelter for any reason
unrelated to the exercise of a state or federal constitutional right.
(cont.)
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
OPTION 1B (MINOR LANGUAGE CLEANUP)
A.Public property
1.It is unlawful for any person to:
a. Camp or sleep in open space at any time.
b.Camp or sleep at any time and in any location of the city upon any
public street, public park, public beach, or other public place, except
in areas which have been specifically posted, designated, or
permitted for such purposes,if the person realistically has access to
adequate temporary or permanent shelter, where the person can sleep
whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is
realistically available to them for free,and the person willfully refuses
such shelter for any reason unrelated to the exercise of a state or
federal constitutional right.
(cont.)
A.Public property
1.It is unlawful for any person to camp in or upon any public street, public park, public
beach, or other public place, except in areas which have been specifically posted,
designated, or permitted for such purposes. For enforcement of this section between
10 p.m. and 6 a.m., which may include sleeping in public places during these hours,
the person must have access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they
have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for free, and
the person willfully refuses such shelter for any reason unrelated to the exercise of a
state or federal constitutional right.
2.Notwithstanding Section 8.36.030(A)(1), it is unlawful for any person to camp or sleep
in open space at any time.
(cont.)
OPTION 2 (NEW)ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
COMPARING OPTIONS
OPTION 1A
OPTION 1B
OPTION 2
Enforceable all times of day IF shelter is available
Enforceable all times of day IF shelter is available
Retains existing exception for legal campgrounds
Language mirrors court ruling exactly
Enforceable during daytime regardless of shelter availability
AND Enforceable at night IF shelter is available
Language mirrors court ruling exactly
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
RECOMMENDED ACTION
•Amend Chapter 8.36 (“Camping on Public Property”)
•Introduce the provision in Option 2 to increase enforcement capacity
•Amend Section 8.28.050 (“Distribution or solicitation to persons in vehicles”)
•Add a new Chapter 8.34 (“Solicitation”)
•Add a new Chapter 8.38 (“Obstruction of Property, Trespass, and Disorderly
Conduct”)
•Amend Section 8.44.040 (“Consuming or possessing an open container of
alcoholic beverages in certain public places and parks owned by the city
prohibited”)
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
{city of
Carlsbad
NEXT STEPS
9/28/21
Introduce ordinance
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
10/12/21
Adopt ordinance
11/11/21
Ordinance in effect
Public outreach Data, reporting, policy updates____________ _____,.... ... ... ...
{city of
Carlsbad
STEP 1: VOUCHER OPTIONS
1. Limited-Term Stay Emergency Hotel Voucher Pilot YES/NO
2. Emergency Shelter
Voucher Program at the
Hyland Inn
OR NEITHER
4. Assist expansion of La Posada
5. Amend Zoning Ordinance
6. Pursue Project Homekey funds
ANY OR ALL
ITEM #8 HOMELESS VOUCHER OPTIONS
SHORT-TERMMID-TERMLONG TERM3. Scattered Site
Hotel Voucher
Program OR
CAMPING OPTIONS
OPTION 1A
OPTION 1B
OPTION 2
Enforceable all times of day IF shelter is available
Enforceable all times of day IF shelter is available
Retains existing exception for legal campgrounds
Language mirrors court ruling exactly
Enforceable during daytime regardless of shelter availability
AND Enforceable at night IF shelter is available
Language mirrors court ruling exactly
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
ALL ORDINANCE CHANGES
•Amend Chapter 8.36 (“Camping on Public Property”)
•Amend Section 8.28.050 (“Distribution or solicitation to persons in vehicles”)
•Add a new Chapter 8.34 (“Solicitation”)
•Add a new Chapter 8.38 (“Obstruction of Property, Trespass, and Disorderly
Conduct”)
•Amend Section 8.44.040 (“Consuming or possessing an open container of
alcoholic beverages in certain public places and parks owned by the city
prohibited”)
ITEM #9 QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCES
{city of
Carlsbad