SLO County’s Safe Parking Site will stay open another month — but that’s probably it

Residents of San Luis Obispo County’s Safe Parking Site won the right to stay for another month — but this might be the last extension they’ll get.

On Friday, District Judge André Birotte Jr. extended a temporary restraining order against the county through Monday, April 29, at 3 p.m., according to hearing minutes.

In February 2023, the county announced it would wind down operations at the Oklahoma Avenue Safe Parking Site until all residents had either left on their own or found paths to housing with help from case workers from nonprofits such as the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo.

On March 15, Birotte ruled in favor of the California Homeless Union — which represents the dozen or so remaining residents in their lawsuit against San Luis Obispo County — when he granted a temporary restraining order that prevented the county from going ahead with the planned removal of the remaining residents.

His previous ruling was based on the argument that evicting residents from the site without sufficient housing or shelter options would violate the their Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

Through the removal process, the county has maintained that there are adequate housing and shelter opportunities to support the residents.

The homeless union argued at a March 27 show-cause hearing that shelters such as 40 Prado Homeless Services Center are full, and introduced evidence that the shelter is currently dealing with a lice infestation, California Homeless Union attorney Anthony Prince told The Tribune.

The court extended the temporary restraining order to the April 29 deadline, citing “foregoing concerns” presented by 40 Prado, according to hearing minutes.

No more extensions likely for parking site

Though the homeless union won an extension for the remaining site residents, the court maintained that the Safe Parking Site was never supposed to be a permanent home, according to hearing minutes.

Residents have consistently said that they feel CAPSLO has not done enough to get them into housing, often criticizing the housing options provided by case workers.

The court said evidence shows that residents have refused to engage with CAPSLO case workers, and have not upheld the Relocation Assistance Program contracts that almost every resident signed late last year, according to hearing minutes.

The court also was concerned “it is not clear that Plaintiffs recognize that they too have a responsibility to affirmatively seek out other accommodations.”

The court is not likely to extend the restraining order past April 29, Prince said.

Extending the restraining order to April 29 for a site that was supposed to close Feb. 2 is almost the same as the 90-day period of stay the residents agreed to when they first signed into the parking site in 2021, the court said.

When asked for alternative solutions, Prince suggested either permitting residents to stay on the site in their vehicles, on certain streets or at county campsites, or exempting the remaining residents from the county’s enforcement of parking ordinances, but Birotte said these alternatives would only maintain the status quo.

He also took issue with the fact that the proposed alternatives placed the onus of finding housing solely on the county, according to the hearing minutes.

“The Court expects that this additional period is sufficient time for Plaintiffs to in fact find other shelter — with the assistance of CAPSLO, or on their own,” the civil minutes read. “The Court is not likely to extend interim relief any further as the merits analysis along with the other elements of a TRO analysis are likely to no longer favor Plaintiffs after that time.”

Prince told The Tribune that despite the court’s warning, he and the union plan to continue to appeal the closing date to the next level.

“It seems to the judge that the plaintiffs have an obligation here to accept whatever is pushed in front of them,” Prince said. “We do not think that is the law — they do not have to accept a situation which will put them at greater risk.”