HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1996, 1B - USE PERMIT (U 14-96) AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (ARC 14-96) FOR A HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER AT 43 PRADO ROAD INCLUDING AN ENCLOSED EATING AREA, LAUNDRY AND SHOWER FACILITIES, SOCIAL SERVICES SUPPORT FACILITIES, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND POSSIBL IIIIID�R�IINIIIII��I N,III MEETING DATE:
Illull`IIIIUI
city o1" san lues oBispo a-aa-g�
u COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMB7
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Director of Community Development
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review anger GA
SUBJECT: Use Permit (U 14-96) and Architectural Review (ARC 14-96) for a Homeless
Services Center at 43 Prado Road including an enclosed eating area, laundry and shower facilities,
social service support facilities, site improvements, and possible use of a temporary tent/canopy for
the noontime meal program.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution"A" making required findings and:
1. Granting the Negative Declaration of environmental impact;
2. Approving the use permit to allow the proposed social service use within the Public Facilities
Zoning District;
3. Granting Final Architectural Review for the proposed building improvements and site
improvements; and
4. Approve use of a tent or canopy on a temporary basis not to exceed 30 consecutive days for
start-up of the noontime meal program prior to completion of the permanent facility as
needed.
DISCUSSION
Backparound
The City Council on January 23, 1996 directed staff to initiate and fast track an application for use
permit and architectural review for a new Homeless Services Center on Prado Road. Staff was also
directed to schedule a public hearing on both requests directly to the Council on February 20, 1996.
The plans for the new facility were developed by the Homeless Services Center Steering Committee
(Committee) and are attached to this report. The plans show how the facility could be built in two
phases with the enclosed eating area, site landscaping, and re-striping of the existing on-site paving
being developed first and occupied while construction of the phase Il improvements (multi-purpose
building, showers, laundry facilities, and final site improvements) is underway.
The proposed facility is classified in the City's Zoning Regulations as a"social services and charitable
agencies"use type which is allowed in the Public Facilities(PF)zoning district with a use permit. The
purpose for the use permit requirement, as specified in Section 17.58.0 10 of the Municipal Code is
to regulate uses so they are"compatible with existing or desired conditions in their neighborhoods."
The use permit may be granted if the Council finds:
"the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
working or living at the site or within the vicinity. "
�lu�► ►►�IIIIIIIIII�°�°►91U111 city or San OBISpo
ni;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The code goes further and provides criteria for approval of use permits by stating:
"In deciding whether a proposal is acceptable at a given location, the... Council
shall consider whether the proposal could be established and maintained without
jeopardy to persons or property within or adjacent to the proposed site and without
damage to the resources of the site and its surroundings. "
Section 2.48.170 and the City's Architectural Review Guidelines requires the proposed buildings and
site improvements to go through architectural review. The purpose for architectural review is to
"create a pleasant environment, maintain property values, preserve the City's natural beauty and
visual character, and ensure orderly and harmonious development." The City's Architectural Review
Guidelines provide general criteria to ensure that this purpose is maintained.
Evaluation
A. Use Permit
The entire site is 1.23 acres in area, with approximately 1 acre devoted to the Homeless Services
Center. Access to the site is by a service road that also provides access to the wastewater treatment
plant and City bus maintenance facility. The proposed site improvements will occupy approximately
two thirds of the site leaving an unimproved expansion area for future uses as they may occur. The
plan is compact, yet provides ample parking, landscaping, and building area. The buildings will be
arranged in an efficient pattern that will provide easy access, solar orientation, and sheltering from
prevailing winds.
The site will be developed in conformance with applicable zoning standards. The zoning regulations
call for a parking ratio of 1 space for every 300 square feet devoted to "social service uses." Using
this ratio, a total parking demand for the 4,160 square foot center would be 14 spaces. However,
since the noontime meal program component would be more closely related to a "restaurant," a
higher parking ratio should be considered. The Committee performed research and interviewed staff
and clients at the existing People's Kitchen meal center in order to determine how many people would
arrive at the new facility by automobile. Based on their research, they propose the development of
20 parking spaces(ratio of 1 space for every 210 square feet)plus an on-site bicycle storage area that
should be sufficient to meet the needs of the fully operational center. Should the need for additional
overflow parking arise, the unimproved expansion area could be used.
The plans currently do not provide area for storage of recyclable materials. Staff would therefore
recommend that as a condition of approval that these facilities be designed into the project.
Since the proposed development complies with all applicable zoning standards, the remaining use
permit issue is one of land use compatibility. Due to the nature of the PF zoning district and mixture
of Service Commercial and Office zoning that exist in the area, the City's General Plan may be the
best tool to determine land use compatibility. The Land Use Element (LUE) of the City's General
Plan calls for grouping of certain governmental and social services to provide efficient service
lid —2
.= COUNCIL city o f san �_JS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
delivery. Policy 5.1.6 specifically calls for a "social-services area" along Prado Road near South
I-Eguera. The proposed social service facility will comply with this general plan policy and place the
clients of the facility near other existing social service/governmental offices that may serve their
needs.
The only remaining use permit component to discuss is the potential for use of a temporary tent or
canopy should the.new eating area not be completed by the second week of April, which is the
scheduled occupancy date for the noontime meal program. Chapter 15.28 of the Municipal Code
requires a Council permit to use a tent (completely enclosed on four sides) on a temporary basis. In
issuing a tent permit, the Council must find that the temporary use will not be detrimental to the
"public safety, interest or welfare."
Staff fully expects the permanent facility to be finished by the scheduled occupancy date. However,
in order to"build in" a slight margin of error, staff believes that a tent could provide a sheltered eating
area until the permanent eating facility is completed. The tent would be located in the unimproved
expansion area out of the way of on-going construction. Based on the location of the site in a service
commercial area with proper screening from Prado Road and surrounding properties, staff does not
believe the use of a tent will be detrimental to the public safety, interest or welfare. It should be
mentioned that the maximum time period that a tent can occupy the site in accordance with City
regulations, is 30 days.
B. Architectural Review
In general, it is the goal of architectural review to have quality projects that are compatible with their
surrounding neighborhood. The City's Architectural Review Guidelines provide some "general
criteria" for reviewing design characteristics and neighborhood compatibility.
Both buildings will be constructed with vertical T-111 siding, aluminum frame windows, and
composition shingles. The homeless services building will be 16 feet high and the eating area 12 feet.
The neighborhood does not have any unique architectural styles and is predominantly occupied by
service commercial buildings of with a variety of styles. The site is sufficiently screened from Prado
Road and adjoining properties. In addition, landscaping will be planted that will provide additional
site screening as well as provide a pleasant atmosphere for staff and clients.
Staff believes that the design and layout of the development will be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. As of the writing of this staff report, colors, landscape plan, and recycling/trash
enclosure details have not been provided. Staff therefore would recommend that the Council approve
the design subject to these minor details being referred back to staff for review and approval.
C. Environmental Review
Staff has completed an initial study (attached) in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) and has concluded that the project as designed, will not have a significant impact
on the environment. Based on analysis contained in the initial study, staff is recommending that the
��u��ib►►I�IIIIIpIII����uq)�III MY Of San L_ .S OBI SPO
11ii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed temporary use has been reviewed by the Police, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities
Departments, and the Building Division of the Community Development Department. Comments
from these departments have been incorporated into this report and draft conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACTS
See separate report from Chief Gardiner
ALTERNATIVES
1. Find the use and or design incompatible with the neighborhood and adopt Resolution B
denying the use permit, architectural review, and temporary tent permit.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolutions A& B
2. Vicinity Map
3. Site Plan and Building Elevations
4. Initial Study and Environmental Analysis
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A USE PERMIT,ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW,AND TEMPORARY
TENT PERMIT FOR A HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER ON
CITY PROPERTY AT 43 PRADO RD.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fines. That this Council, after consideration of the Use Permit and
Architectural Review applications, and Temporary Tent Permit, staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed development and reflects the independent judgement
of the City Council.
2. The proposed use will further goals and policies of the City's General Plan which calls for
consolidation of social service uses in the Prado Road area.
3. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare of persons working or living in the vicinity and will be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
4. The proposed design of the Homeless Services Center and site improvements will be
compatible with the character of the surrounding Service Commercial and Office area and will
comply with City development regulations.
5. The temporary use of a tent for the noontime meal program for a time not to exceed 30
consecutive days will not be detrimental to the public safety, interest or welfare due to the
screened location within this predominantly Service Commercial neighborhood.
SECTION 2. The request for approval of the Use Permit, Architectural Review, and
Temporary Tent Permit for the proposed Homeless Services Center at 43 Prado Road is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
2. The project shall include facilities for on-site trash containment, as well as for interior and
exterior recycling, to the approval of the City Engineer and the Community Development
Director. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size and locations of
areas dedicated to on-site recycling storage.
3. The applicant shall submit proposed building colors and detailed landscaping and irrigation
plan for approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
4. The temporary tent permit limits duration of use to a maximum of 30 consecutive days. On
or before the end of the 30 day period, the tent shall be removed and site returned to the same
condition it was in prior to occupancy.
5. A drainage plan shall be prepared and submitted along with the Building Permit that shows
how site runoff will be disposed of in accordance with City standards.
6. The permanent parking lot shall be paved with an all-weather surface in accordance with City
Parking and Driveway Standards. Alternative permanent paving may be approved by the
Community Development Director provided it provides a suitable, all-weather, load-bearing
surface to support passenger cars and light-duty trucks.
7. Curbing around all landscape areas within the parking lot shall be in accordance with City
standard curb design No. 4020.
8. Disabled access requirements of the Building Code shall be complied with including suitable
access between the facility and a "public way" to the satisfaction of the Chief Building
Official.
9. The proposed Eating Area building must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the Firing
Range building and the southerly wall must be of 1-hour fire resistive construction to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. No openings will be permitted in this wall.
10. The proposed storage containers must maintain a minimum 20 foot setback from the property
line or wall opposite the property line must be of 1-hour fire resistive construction to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
On motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 1996.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
i tto ey
144- 7
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
A USE PERMIT,ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW,AND TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT
FOR A HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER ON
CITY PROPERTY AT 43 PRADO RD.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Use Permit,
Architectural Review, and Temporary Tent Permit, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
The proposed design and use of the site will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare of persons working or living in the vicinity and is incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhood because... <:.">`.n: >::;:»::.::.....::...::...:: ..<.»:,.;:•:
P� ( t►t�;e��4npleted�y<CPun'cf�j
SECTION 2. The request for approval of the Use Permit, Architectural Review, and
Temporary Tent Permit for the Homeless Services Center at 43 Prado Road is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 1996.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney
Oma—' •
O '
r
a a
a '
/:: fp{ s j W.. � tab.. MPeV V A •.
Vicinity Map
Homeless
Yf
Services Center
4
{
aoo .
yam? • .
x
X41 Q
r
b 'h4
0 1Q
ffL-,
.� -P
O •�sl:h"ic G " �.. T qpm
0-
V•
0,17•73 r e
4YI,•
• LTl7•!! + LIIG.C1•
AwL 10 �° 0
,nc-Irle � 0
allr .
CCE '1-n4hf1 -3
^e Yc1Fb
AS,.y
,.CN•IL Ale,.
IN
i , Sime we no-6%
; 0.010"i _ i
w C,�
f Fie
Ma
aLCSfIsfLX.1La1 SOUTHWrFa7110
E
,A,��)� y~ AIO�dL eef�i4A YY y11 L44-.I 7tlL
eyfe
I s
i
pq1 A
c 9
I 9
o CD �z
;. �:
z t ....l _.....
/
t7 Birycl<y '•' Covered Porch
w r
1 G a ....................................... • ' •,;II ° I.i
E'. Vb
d
r ^
, ii 'Cil r �jt♦,
I :;:}ij??:Gi:iii:�:^::ii:::^:�i:�i?:�: '• N 1 ! • 1��!
ll • 1.{
4 ,
I I
A 1
d rt q In
� I
x 6 „a
�er
a n I
I `^77 � r •. n a
I }
-t-• 1
I II
1
1 I
I I
N
s
/B- //
i
I o �
:= Z
CD 1 'ter • - `
r_... z ::.. .
CD
ov
I
n
S� 1
1 G `•V
I '
C. 1
w
crg
OE
I E 6
1 �
1 dsm � w
I n1
10
a 1 o
I
1 � n
I
I � I
1
1
1
1
1
1
--------------- -------------------------�
m
r
O
/4+ Z
p I • o
W C � c��m �i •r•
z
N muvw K�e'" O �
a V m U N b 'T C .
U
em U � „#a. U
"� y -• `o c � O.D C N W c E �
N _ W cc
.. rQ+) CJ '7 U -0 m Jt�yi CCS p 2
Q 4-.: V
lm m y •°�' 06•
�y Waft a rn
G
o
•y o
06 >Q
N y
...................
m �.__.........�
HI .... ...........i
Fo '_ i
; ............
-- a
1 .........._...
Ig
C
O � V
c
...........
�3
019 0
CS
_..
w
V
�.................1.7...._._.....,
.................................: :...............
S C :_.......—.._._.__.._;
i
. ...._.._.....i....._._..... ................ _
r f�' ...,...i
1
cu
00.27 :.................i.................. :.._.._......
it
�e -�3
.� d O
e„nG„mm
012
N Q 1°�o�a"iryrya kn C m U 6.C
CN
m
m V p q C
U U _..�.hl m�m
e „._ U
E �6
o.— > � b E
V
W O m.� m O -�'
m� ? m e y.0 O.. $�m• e� p
OV
40
L O
O.W
mC C
AftV a :zV cc
ee
ee
eoe
c
LJ n n
C
o� ou
N
n�o
av
J
4
....................................._
iueu, .. .... ...........................
Y T r
j m i] x iJ
JH "J J �Cv O N V C
D w '�, a v
IIf�I1I!I; o ”` owla I I J o
1. _Je w Va C 5 C* 6 3
_ > k > .a °
a>q
0 .171
11
, F
8�B
3� w
N (�
II
cityo san vu�s oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title:
Prado Road Homeless Services Facility
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager
(805) 781-7177
4. Project Location:
43 Prado Road (behind the ECOSLO recycling yard)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Government Facilities
7. Zoning:
Public Facilities (PF)
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
I►Il��ll�lllllll�lllf������Il lll�ll�lllllllf III I IIII luis• city osAn oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but
not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-
site features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if
necessary)
Construction of a homeless services facility to include a covered eating area
for The People's Kitchen noontime meal program, a homeless services building,
to include restrooms, showers, and laundry facilities as well as meeting rooms
for education and social service assistance, and accessory parking,
landscaping, storage, and other site improvements.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's
surroundings)
North: Recycling collection and processing yard and vacant north of
Prado Road
South: City wastewater treatment plant
East:. Industrial/heavy commercial
West: City corporation yard
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement).
-None-
DThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. /B�,
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
3
/9 -/7
January 25, 1996
ignatwer Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards(e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially . Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X
The Land Use Element (LUE) of the City's General Plan calls for grouping of certain governmental and social services to
provide efficient service delivery. Policy 5.1.6 specifically calls for a "social-services area" along Prado Road near South
Higuera. The proposed social service facility will comply with this general plan policy and place the clients of the facility
near other existing social service/governmental offices that may serve their needs.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
The proposed use will be compatible with existing and planned development in the area which includes governmental
offices, City facilities, service commercial uses, and other planned office uses.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
1) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
The site is currently developed with a small building. A large portion of the site is currently paved. The plans call for new
buildings and paved parking which will require proper drainage to be accommodated in site preparation. However, given
the historic pavement of the site, the new facility should not generate a significant increase in surface water runoff.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
6
- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting X
or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD
Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lose Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
Surveys prepared by the Homeless Services Center Steering Committee have indicated that approximately 15% of the
clients will drive to the facility. An increase in trips on Prado Road is estimated at 50-100 per day which include clients
and service providers. This increase in traffic is not considered a significant increase and can be fully accommodated by
the existing level of road improvements in the area.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
As stated above, approximately 15% of the clients will drive to the site. The plans show the development of on-site
parking (both temporary parking while construction is under way as well as parking for the finished facility) with
sufficient number of spaces to meet the facilities needs. A parking calculation was preformed and found to be i.
compliance with City Zoning Regulations.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The facility will be adequately served with bus service to allow for alternative forms of transportation for those who
choose not to drive personal automobiles. In addition, a bike storage facility will be provided in order to encourage bike
transportation by clients and staff.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 2 X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?,
The site is at the transition zone between Area 3 (under approach & climb out extensions) and Area 5 (other land between
runway extensions) as shown on the County's Land Use Plan. The expected concentration of people on-site will be
focused mainly at noontime with approximately 100 individuals. The remaining daytime hours will have less intensive
usage. The proposed low intensity use is not identified in the "Airport Land Use Compatibility Listing." However similar
uses are identified as compatible in both Area 3 and 5. In addition more intense land uses including multi-story office
buildings have been found to be compatible within Area 3 by the County.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially as Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise Levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 3 X
The City's Noise Element of the General Plan identify noise levels at this site to be in the 55-60 decibel (dBA) range. This
public assembly use is considered in the "clearly acceptable" noise exposure range. No mitigation beyond standard
construction techniques will be required to attenuate existing noise levels.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
The police department has indicated that this facility will become part of their regular patrol route. No additional staffing
resources will be required.
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? T_ I X
e) Other governmental services? X
The proposed Homeless Services Facility will be a multi-function center that provides a noontime meal program, showers,
laundry facilities, and social service resources to homeless individuals. Although not a governmental program, government
grants and funding will be involved. The facility will consolidate needed services to the City's and County's homeless
population.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Then No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d► Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
As discussed above, the site although underdeveloped, has been developed in the past. In addition, the surrounding
area is currently developed with similar land uses. Staff has not identified any sensitive species or habitats on-site or
on adjoining properties that require special protection.
_T
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
The proposed development has been found to not have any significant environmental impacts and therefore any
advantages gained by the development will not be to the detriment of long-term City environmental goals
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
12
IA26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
As discussed in the General Plan LUE, this area of the City has been identified for social services such as this.
Therefore, the proposed concentration of similar uses is a cumulative impact that is desired or beneficial to the City as
a whole. No negative impacts will result when considered from an individual or cumulative standpoint.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly)
As discussed above, the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts requiring further analysis or
mitigation.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
N/A
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element
2 County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan
3 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element
13 /