Marsha Hallet
PO Box 1707
San Anselmo, CA 94959
415-456-3222
marshahallet@gmail.com
PO Box 1707
San Anselmo, CA 94959
415-456-3222
marshahallet@gmail.com
March 30, 2015
Rob Epstein
Town Attorney
525 San
Anselmo Ave.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
181 Third Street Suite
225
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear
Mr. Epstein,
I am writing to you about the
emergency shelter for the homeless that REST (Rotating Emergency Shelter Team)
plans to open for 8 weeks this summer on Mariposa Avenue in San Anselmo. When I
called the Attorney General's Office to ask questions about this matter and to
ask what citizens can do if their city does not comply with its own laws, it
was suggested that I write to the Town Attorney.
In summary, San Anselmo
Municipal Code describes the requirements for an emergency shelter where
homeless will be housed for less than six months. Since there is a limit of 17
homeless in such a shelter, REST would be violating the law by planning to
house 40 men. The Municipal Code requires management and security
on premises ("on-site"), and REST plans no security guards. There has
been no written plan provided, and Municipal Code requires a written plan
concerning staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, and screening of
residents. I learned that REST plans no sobriety test at critical junctures.
Apparently, REST plans no criminal records check and no weapons search. My
letter to the City Council dated March 24, 2015 states items listed in the
Municipal Code that REST apparently does not plan to adhere to, and I list them
below.
After I spoke at a Council meeting
on March 24, 2015, the City Planner said that REST did not need a permit and
did not have to comply with the Municipal Code because its shelter was
"temporary." I do not believe that is the law, and I have provided
you with authority below.
The
Following Is A Brief Summary Of Events:
On March 11, 2015, I attended a REST neighborhood meeting. The attendees were separated into groups, and a REST volunteer submitted questions from each group to a volunteer from St. Vincent de Paul who recorded them on a presentation board. Some individuals also asked questions that were recorded. Pat Langley of REST stated that she would respond to the questions in writing. No answers have been forthcoming. On March 16, I went the Town Planning Department and was told that because the shelter was temporary, the rules outlined in Chapter 12, Emergency Shelter, San Anselmo Town Code, did not apply. I confirmed what I was told in an email. On March 18, I e-mailed Pat Langley, to find out when the questions generated and recorded at that meeting would be answered. Pat Langley responded that she did not have answers. On March 24, I had email correspondence with Alysa Stevenson, Marin County Planner where she confirmed for me that Town of San Anselmo laws apply and county rules do not.
On March 11, 2015, I attended a REST neighborhood meeting. The attendees were separated into groups, and a REST volunteer submitted questions from each group to a volunteer from St. Vincent de Paul who recorded them on a presentation board. Some individuals also asked questions that were recorded. Pat Langley of REST stated that she would respond to the questions in writing. No answers have been forthcoming. On March 16, I went the Town Planning Department and was told that because the shelter was temporary, the rules outlined in Chapter 12, Emergency Shelter, San Anselmo Town Code, did not apply. I confirmed what I was told in an email. On March 18, I e-mailed Pat Langley, to find out when the questions generated and recorded at that meeting would be answered. Pat Langley responded that she did not have answers. On March 24, I had email correspondence with Alysa Stevenson, Marin County Planner where she confirmed for me that Town of San Anselmo laws apply and county rules do not.
On March 24, I gave a 3 minute
address at the Town Council Meeting stating that I believed that the shelter
had to comply with the Ordinances that govern shelters that house people for
less than six months.
A San Anselmo city
planner followed me and stated that the rules don’t apply because the
shelter is temporary. A City council member followed up and emailed me that he
would answer my personal questions, indicating to me that the City Council was neither
requiring REST to answer the questions raised by the community at the
March 11 meeting nor requiring REST to comply with the law in Municipal Code
Chapter 12.
A
Recent State Of California Memorandum About Homeless Shelters And Municipal Law
States Very Clearly That Even If No Permit Is Required, Emergency Shelters Must
Comply With Local Ordinances
After I attended the city council
meeting on March 24, I found a signed State of California Memorandum on the
Internet that describes the law pertaining to "emergency shelters"
and defines shelters that house homeless people for less than six months (like
the REST shelter) as “emergency shelters.” This Memorandum states that it was
updated in 2013. It states that special zoning is not required for homeless
shelters that house persons for less than six months, but a city can pass laws
setting parameters for emergency shelters. ("written and objective
standards may be applied as specified in statute, including maximum number of
beds, provision of on site management, length of stay and
security.") As I read it, this Memorandum contradicts the San
Anselmo City Planner because it states that the laws passed by San Anselmo
about emergency shelters must be met by a shelter that houses homeless for less
than six months, just like the proposed REST shelter. It does not state any
exception for shelters deemed "temporary" so that they do not have to
comply with existing law.
Issues
with Planned REST Shelter and What I Have Presented In Writing to Council
Below I have copied the body of the
letter that I gave to the city council on March 24, 2015 that describes the
municipal law and how REST has not complied with the law.
The San Anselmo Municipal Code defines
“emergency shelter” as housing defined by California Health and Safety Code
section 50801(e). Section 50801(e) defines emergency shelter as housing with
minimal supportive services for homeless persons that can be no longer than six
months. Since this shelter plans to house homeless for less than six months, it
falls within the definition. The exact language of 50801(e) is “six months or
less.”
The
Proposed Shelter Violates the Municipal Code in the Following Ways:
1. Lack of Security
and Failure to Comply with Applicable Code Provisions
San Anselmo Municipal Code section 10-12.03 states that on-site management and
on-site security shall be provided during the hours when the emergency shelter
is in operation.
There was no assurance at the meeting that there will be security guards on the
premises. REST stated that there will only be employees of St. Vincent de Paul,
and the inference was that they were not licensed security guards. My
understanding is that in California, persons providing security must be
licensed. I learned that there will not be licensed security guards
on-site, and there is no contract with a security company.
2. Lighting Is Inadequate and Does Not Comply With Code Provisions
2. Lighting Is Inadequate and Does Not Comply With Code Provisions
San Anselmo Municipal Code section 10-12.03(b) (2) requires that external
lighting be provided for security purposes. The lighting must be “stationary,
directed away from adjacent properties and public rights of way, and of
intensity compatible with the surrounding area.”
Currently, the exit doors from the
gym are completely dark. There are areas in the street outside the gym that are
not well lit. These conditions violate the code.
3. Facilities Are Not Designed To Provide Security for Residents,
Visitors, and the Surrounding Area as required by the Code
Municipal Code section 10-12.03(c) requires that parking and outdoor
facilities shall be designed to provide security for residents, visitors,
employees and the surrounding area. There is no security, and I learned at the
meeting that the doors cannot be locked because of fire hazard.
4.
The Refuse Area Violates Municipal Code Requirements
The Municipal Code section
10-12.03(d) requires that a refuse storage area must be completely enclosed
with masonry walls not less than five (5) feet high with a solid-gated opening
and that is large enough to accommodate a standard-sized trash bin adequate for
use on the parcel, or other enclosures as approved by the Planning Director.
The refuse enclosure shall be accessible to refuse collection vehicles.
The refuse area does not meet the code requirements. The garbage area is not
enclosed.
5. The Municipal Code Requires A Written Management Plan
and None Has Been Forthcoming
Municipal Code section 10-12.03(e)
(3) requires that there be a written management
plan.
The language is as follows:
The language is as follows:
The
provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable,
provisions for staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, screening of
residents to insure compatibility with services provided at the facility, and
for training, counseling, and treatment programs for residents.
I have asked for the written plan
and it is not been forthcoming. My understanding is that no plan exists.
6. The Municipal Code Requires
a Written Plan Concerning Neighborhood Outreach.
I learned that San Anselmo
provided REST with address labels for owners and residents within a 300 ft.
radius based on the latest equalized assessment roll. The REST effort lacked
transparency because the return address labels said REST instead of Rotating
Emergency Shelter Team and St. Vincent de Paul. I question whether there
was appropriate canvassing because I live in the area and did not receive a leaflet nor see leaflets left in doorways. If
REST had complied with the Municipal Code, there would have been a plan to
canvas.
7. The Municipal Code Requires
a Description of Security Provided and There Has Been No Written Plan for
Security Provided
The Municipal Code requires a written plan
for security in addition to on-site management. As described above, no written
plan for on-site security has been provided. There is no plan for security
guards, and no written information involving the specifics of how security will
be enforced and the neighborhood protected.
8. The Municipal Code Requires a Written
Plan for Screening of Homeless Residents and Safety of Residents living In the
Area, And No Plan Has Been Provided
The Municipal Code requires a written plan
to ensure the safety of residents living in the area and homeless at the
shelter. This would require screening the homeless. There is no information as
to the qualifications of the persons screening and what type of screening is
done. REST representatives admitted that homeless may be intoxicated. There is
no criminal record check. There is no information as to whether homeless are
checked for drugs, weapons, or contraband of any kind. The Municipal Code
requires a written plan on these issues and none has been forthcoming.
9. The Municipal Code Requires a
Written Plan for Programs for Homeless Residents and No Plan has been provided.
The Municipal Code requires a written plan
for homeless residents. This requirement has not been met. It is important to
learn what activities and programs will be available to homeless residents.
10. The Municipal Code States That
The Maximum Number Of Beds In An Emergency Shelter Shall Be 17, And Rest Plans
To House 40 Men. This Is Another Clear Violation.
Municipal Code limits the
number of homeless in an emergency shelter to 17 men. Housing 40 men is a
violation.
In
Summary
From my reading of the Municipal
Code Section and the State Memorandum, I see no exception for shelters that are
"temporary." Municipal Ordinance 12 defines emergency
shelters as shelters housing homeless for six months or less. The proposed
shelter fits that definition. The purpose of the ordinance appears to
allow shelters but to insure the safety of the community around the shelter. It
should be enforced.
I care very much about
everyone in this community---my elderly, vulnerable neighbors and the
homeless---and
I believe that my service on the
Civil Grand Jury 2013-2014 is indicative of my commitment to our greater
community.
Thank
you for your attention to this matter. I hope to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Marsha Hallet
cc: Town Manager
- Deborah Stutsman
Mayor and City Council Members - John
Wright, Doug Kelley, Ford Greene, Kay
Coleman, Doug McInerney
No comments :
Post a Comment