|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Ed
Brunt, Katherine Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson,
Phil Hemphill, Barbara Hogue, Shirley Martin-Smith, Robert Mosely, Sara
Taliaferro |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Hubbard
Collinsworth, Saunny Scott, Bill Sims |
Hartnett called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm.
Introductions
Members, staff and public introduced themselves.
Approval of the agenda and the January 10, 2006 minutes
Martin-Smith moved to approve the January 10,
2006 minutes. Dinsdale seconded the motion, which passed.
LCS UPR
Hartnett asked if the group would like to go through
the conditions one by one and to refer to any documents that pertain to that
item. The group can refer to staff and have a discussion and keep in mind that
the end result will be a recommendation to the City Commission (CC). She asked
if everyone had the Planning Commission (PC) Meeting Minutes.
Item 1 Revision of site plan
Hartnett said it is an issue of time – a one year
permit versus the requested five year permit.
Swarts said it would be optimal to come up with a
plan that staff (Planning, CD and Legal) think would be workable and the CCH
can forward it to the CC. The recommendation would be supported by the city
staff and the CCH.
Hartnett clarified that optimally, city staff would
support, not approve the recommendation.
Swarts said yes and that originally the UPR was for
five years and then the PC recommended changing it to one year.
Hartnett said that the CCH, as a community
commission should first discuss the issues related to a one year term.
Loring said the LCS is still requesting a five year
UPR.
Hogue said the PC language sounds threatening and
that maybe at the end of the year, it may not be renewed.
Hemphill said the PC was giving LCS one year to cure
the problems. Some are more difficult to address than others, but it could
happen that LCS may not be approved for a permit in the future. There was a
loitering clause from the original permit – a requirement for LOS and CDIC. The
CCH has to consider if that was the same as in the current conditions and then
go about solving the problem.
Hartnett said the group should stick to number one
and discuss the conditions in order – she would like for there to be some order
to the process.
Henderson clarified that what is on the table is a
one year permit and the PC is proposing that one year will give the shelter
time to solve or make progress on the problems and if not, there will be
accountability and perhaps no renewal so yes, the threat is there. He still
proposes that a five year permit is appropriate – LCS is not driven to work any
harder with a one year permit than a five year permit and it can be reviewed by
the CC at any time if the shelter is in violation. The one year does not bother
him as far as accountability goes because he is going to work on it regardless.
What bothers him is the time spent filing the application and time spent
defending LCS. The time could be spent on more productive things such as
looking for a new building. He cannot address problems when he is consumed with
the issue of the UPR. UPRs can be yanked at any time and if neighbors come up
with objections, they can deal with it. This annual process is an inefficient
use of time.
Martin-Smith said she could go with the five years,
but this is one issue that dovetails into the TF recommendations that we have
expanded services and even a new shelter. To say two years is enough without
going through the requirements – she does not want to do it.
Mosely reemphasized his belief that five years is a
reasonable time frame, but maybe it would be more palatable to the PC and the
neighborhood to split the difference. The CCH can still work on what they need
to do and when it is revisited the permit can always be extended at that time.
Hogue said she agreed with Mosely, but since it is
subject to review at any time anyway, the five years gives LCS more time to
accomplish objectives.
Faubion asked about the time limit for the new
facility per the plan.
Martin-Smith said there was no time limit and some
of the recommendations they made just do not seem to fit with what is going on.
If the CCH did not have this issue, the next meeting might be spent trying to put
timelines on the big ticket items. She sees no harm, that if the CCH recommends
a five year permit, in asking for updates from LCS that can be reported to the
CC. For this to be reported to Planning makes no sense – what will they do with
it?
Taliaferro asked if once the one year limit is put
on the UPR that means that it always has to be for one year.
Henderson answered that at the end of one year, he
would ask again for five years – LCS is not prevented from doing that. Now that
the CCH has had some discussion about the time issue, we should discuss the
rest of the conditions and come back to the time.
Martin-Smith said it is difficult to say how long it
should take to address these conditions. Some may be inappropriate and should
be eliminated entirely by the CC and the CCH needs to be able to defend
recommendations.
Hartnett said that she feels the issue of time is
separate from the conditions.
Dinsdale said they are on the cusp of being able to
act on concerns, but she questions which arena is going to be used. To use the
UPR and Planning, it keeps the group from doing what they are supposed to do
which is implement the plan to address issues. This is delaying the process.
Hartnett asked how the group wished to proceed.
Martin-Smith moved to recommend approval of the
UPR with the five year request. Hogue seconded the motion.
Hemphill said the CCH is getting ahead of its task.
The CCH is working on two timelines – certain specified things have to be done
in one year and just blanketing five years before going through the conditions
is not addressing the conditions.
Taliaferro clarified that if the one year time
period passes and the list stands as is and conditions were not met, then
regardless of the time period of the UPR – at the end of one year they will be
addressed.
Pool said that it is more of an enforcement issue.
If someone asked Planning if LCS was complying with the conditions, and if LCS
was not, Planning could revisit the issue.
Taliaferro said that it seems as if allowing LCS to
focus on the list and keeping them from having to deal with lots of paperwork
may give the more time to address the issues. She would like to give LCS the
five year period and let LCS and the CCH focus on the conditions without
worrying about the mechanics. An unhappy neighbor may not feel that a condition
is met, and then they could go through the process of having a hearing.
Hemphill said the reason conditions are there is
because LCS did not adhere to the original permit. The neighborhood is going to
be in the same position next year. He has seen it happen for the last three
years.
Taliaferro said to consider the fact that the CCH is
now here and in place to address these issues. It did not exist even a few
months ago and it was not an option until now. This group is not going to sweep
the neighborhood concerns under the table.
Martin-Smith said the CCH may come up with timelines
to address the things they feel are appropriate to address. The CCH can ask for
progress reports and report results to the CC. It is hoped these issues will
come to the CCH in the future.
Mosely said maybe the reason it looks like some of
the conditions have not been met is because LCS has not been given enough time
in the first place. One year is not enough.
Dinsdale suggested the CCH not get mired in the red
tape of renewal – it is taking us off track. At the last meeting, Hilda (Enoch)
said we were allowing ourselves to get detoured and that had some validity.
Phil and others have been promised things and have been patient and
long-suffering. There are some enormous issues that need to be addressed. What
the CCH is asking for now is – can we find a way to convince Phil and others
that the CCH is serious about dealing with issues? But, revoking a UPR or
erecting artificial barriers that will consume a lot of time is not the way to
go. The City has taken a long time to get this body in place and it has taken a
long time for us to get up to speed.
Taliaferro said the neighbors do have the ability to
request a hearing at any time. It might give Phil artificial comfort to think
it is going to be resolved in a year, but it may be resolved in a year without
the stick.
Swarts said part of the issue appears to be a one
year UPR vs. a five year UPR – even if there is a five year, is there annual
review process?
Pool said no.
Swarts asked if there is a process.
Pool said that if a neighborhood is unhappy, they
can contact staff or elected officials and the CC will establish a Public Hearing
to consider an amendment, suspension or revocation of the UPR.
Hemphill said he does not take the potential outcome
lightly but asked the group to remember that the neighborhood is three years
going on four – not just one year dealing with these issues. They are getting
impatient. As long as the time frame of the UPR is a separate issue from others
that were noted, he is o.k. with it, but one year from now there better be a
handle on these issues.
Mosely said the neighborhood and CCH both want the
same thing, but we need proper time is needed to do it. The CCH needs time to
work on it.
Faubion said what the CCH has been asked to do is to
set up a CCC to deal with neighborhood issues which would factor in and be
helpful for the future and for these conditions.
The
motion passed, Hemphill opposed.
Swarts asked if Pool gets annual reports from other
UPR recipients.
Pool said not unless they request them.
Swarts noted that “annual report of shelter
activity” is vague.
Pool said it was in the original conditions that
staff recommended because it is basic language staff uses to get general
information.
Henderson said in conjunction with the UPR
application,
Taliaferro asked how detailed the reports are that
Henderson does.
Henderson said for example, with the Back to Work
program – he reports their activities and how many were helped.
Martin-Smith asked if it was for this request or
prior and if he was required to give an annual report in the previous UPR.
Henderson said no, not during the time of the
original UPR – maybe initially with the application, but not ongoing. He was
not involved with the CDIC’s application process, which was a 5 year permit.
With the LOS process, he was only active as a member of the board.
Hemphill asked if an annual report would include
some of the items noted in item Four of the PC conditions.
Henderson said yes – it could be anything anyone
wants, but there are only so many things you can say in a report.
Dinsdale said in the TF plan it talks about the CCH
being able to solicit data from agencies – it should happen in this way.
Brunt said he assumed that the annual report is open
to interpretation – we could ask for specifics. Who decides the parameters?
Henderson said part of it will be the CCH job as
well as considering if requiring an annual report reasonable.
Martin-Smith said some issues may roll up in the
report, but she does not agree with reports going to the Planning office – she
does not grasp that now that the CCH is in place.
Hartnett asked if the group thinks the existing
language is acceptable or if they should propose something different.
Martin-Smith said an annual report of shelter should
be submitted to the CCC.
Hartnett said that one of the tasks of the CCH is to
create a comprehensive city annual report about activities that have occurred.
So maybe reports should come to the CCH as a matter of gathering information,
not as a matter of review.
Hogue said an annual report may appease those who
want the one year UPR and for that reason it would be a good idea.
Taliaferro moved to recommend to the CC that item
1b state “notation indicating that annual report on shelter activity be
provided to the
Brunt said he still finds the condition to be very
open-ended and that bothers him.
Dinsdale said if we use the Plan language, the CCH
is able to solicit any non-confidential data. Maybe that should be added to the
motion.
Brunt said Dinsdale is on the right track – there
are parameters that we want to put in, that we will be asking for. Not just
“shelter activity.” Whatever “shelter activity” is should be provided to the
group.
Gouge said Dinsdale summed it up and to Brunt’s
point, the group can decide when they get to 4, what “it” is.
In response to the comments, Taliaferro retracted
the motion and Mosely the second and Taliaferro moved that 1b should read
“notation indicating that an annual report of shelter activity as defined by
the CCH will be provided to the CCH each year.” Brunt seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
Item 2 – Site Plan Performance Agreement
Hartnett asked Pool to explain the second condition.
Pool said it is a common expectation and just means
an agency will comply with the site plan and its notes.
Swarts said it would be an issue if a submitted site
plan was not accurate.
Henderson said it is a major point of discussion
between LCS and the neighbors – a note on the site plan that says LCS will
enforce a 150 feet loitering policy.
Swarts asked if there is a change to a site plan,
can CC approve the change as part of this recommendation?
Pool said yes.
Henderson had requested of the CC that this wording,
the note, be removed. He is asking this because of there being no definition of
loitering and because of the 150 feet enforcement issue. PD and legal staff has
said that this 150 ft radius is not enforceable because it includes public and
private property – areas that are way outside of the ability of the shelter to
control. He asked that the 150 ft radius be removed. The definition of
loitering does come up in a later condition.
Taliaferro said if the note were removed from the
site plan, it would not remove the loitering issue from the list of conditions.
She feels comfortable asking the CC to remove it since the CCH knows that the
issue of loitering is not going to go away because it is removed from the
document – it is going to have to be addressed.
Henderson said he is not disputing that. He would
like to have some authority to go slightly beyond property line and noted the
difficulties of dealing with “the wall” behind LCS.
Hartnett asked
Hemphill said LCS got the original permit because
they said they were going to do certain things. Now the group is talking about
eliminating the conditions.
Dinsdale asked if there is a case to be made that it
is not even legal for the shelter to enforce this policy.
Brunt said LCS cannot enforce it – it does not
matter that it is in the site plan. There is no city ordinance on loitering and
LCS can only enforce what is on LCS property. What is written is wrong. If that
were the case, they could have bar owners take care of those loitering outside
of bars. It cannot be done.
Martin-Smith said the original site plan went
through City Hall and someone should have caught it. Common sense says it should never have been
on a site plan in the first place and it cannot be enforced.
Pool suggested adding that recommendation to number
one – add an item c. to remove the note on site plan.
Dinsdale moved to make a recommendation to strike
from the existing site plan the note stating that LCS will enforce a no
loitering policy within a 150 ft radius of the shelter and to add the notation
as a subpoint c. Taliaferro seconded the motion.
Gouge asked about the loitering problem.
Hemphill suggested that if LCS clients are
loitering, trespassing or urinating on private property, they lose their
services. The rest are going to get the idea. This is completely unfair – the
shelter never followed it in the first place and now they are going to
eliminate it.
Taliaferro said it seems like they are talking about
two things – it is legally unenforceable as stated on the site plan – the CCH is
not taking it off of the agenda. It is the job of the CCH to make services work
in entirety, hand in hand with neighborhoods. Just because it is taken off the
site plan does not mean we are saying for shelter clients to do whatever. She
suggested putting it in another area where we can do something about it.
Brunt said they are talking about two definitions of
enforcement – legal versus the rules and conditions of the shelter. Legally,
the note cannot be enforced. If we are talking about LCS enforcement, that is
entirely different.
Taliaferro said she has friends with businesses in
the area and it has become clear to her that both housed and homeless are
having problems with each other and putting these types of boundaries on it is
not helping. It seems like an artificial construct that does not give anyone
the recourse they need.
The
motion passed, Hemphill opposed.
Hartnett said the group has successfully gotten
through four items – she suggested stopping the discussion to allow for public
comment and plan next meeting.
Swarts asked if the group wished to formally
acknowledge the site plan performance agreement.
Hartnett asked if the group wished to make a motion
on item 2 or would rather wait.
Brunt moved to leave item 2 the way it is stated
in the conditions. Faubion seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously.
Hartnett suggested setting the next meeting date.
The group agreed to meet January 30 at
Public comment
Sims said he has served on many committees and he
commended members for being civil and getting through difficult issues. He
stated that regarding the conditions of item #4, the CCH needs to invite public
from both sides and it may seem that neighborhoods and homeless have different
issues, but they have the same issues.
There was no further public comment.
Adjourn
Hemphill moved to adjourn the meeting. Taliaferro
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at