Encinitas commissioners hear call to restore safe-parking program as staff, residents debate whether people were displaced

Public speakers and commissioners spent more than an hour on the draft homeless action plan and the status of a safe-parking program that ended in December, with sharply different accounts of how many people were affected and whether the city had effectively displaced residents.

Bob Kim, an Encinitas resident who said he supports restoring the program, told the commission the safe-parking site at the community center had operated nearly six years and mainly served seniors and people newly experiencing housing insecurity. “This program is truly the last rung with homelessness prevention,” Kim said, urging the commission to recommend that the city council restore the program and select a proven operator.

Staff members and ad hoc committee participants described process changes in the draft plan that place more emphasis on a by-name HMIS list, trust-network case conferencing and flexible triage options, including hotel vouchers and low-barrier alternatives. One staff speaker urged integrating county public-health services—such as enhanced case management—into the triage step so clients receive mental-health and substance-use services in parallel with housing referrals.

A persistent point of contention was whether the December contract end of a provider-operated safe-parking lot constituted displacement. One commissioner said residents had been offered alternative placements and that the program’s end did not amount to forcible displacement. Ad hoc members and outreach partners said many residents were able to relocate to sites up county, but they also said that at least four people with close Encinitas ties could not make the commute and therefore lost their legal safe-parking option.

“The city and the service provider couldn’t come to mutually acceptable terms, it ended,” one outreach member said, adding that some residents were able to move to a Vista site while others remained in Encinitas and needed help. Commissioners asked staff to check contract timelines and vendor negotiations, and several urged the ad hoc to recommend near-term options—hotel vouchers, shallow rental assistance or targeted vouchers—for people with strong local ties.

Commissioners also discussed outreach structure for future public engagement: a mix of Brown-Act-compliant public meetings, confidential case-conferencing for trust-network partners, and targeted community-provider meetings to reach people with lived experience who may not speak at a public meeting.

No final policy was adopted at the meeting. The commission directed the ad hoc committee to return with concrete recommendations and potential budget figures for voucher or emergency housing options so the commission can consider forwarding proposals to the city council.