HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1988, 1 - APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TEMP USE PERMIT FOR HOMELESS SHELTER 1333 JOHNSON AVE LQ.�� 0. 1 V Respond by: .
[.rGauncil
Councilman Allen Settle RCao November 1, 1988
City Hall RCAy any.
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 rk-omMEETING AGENDA
P-"'.my CTRR' DATE "� ' ITEM #
Dear Councilman Settle : &7-r
Cb�FitiE
I have been trying to get to no avail. I walked
a sheet around the Mitchell Park area gathering signatures to endorse
and support the appeal to the City Council regarding the house at
1333 Johnson Avenue.
The people in this area are having grave concerns about this house
going to the People ' s Shelter, especially the many older, single
women who live by themselves . They are very concerned about the ,
value of their properties . Many of them told me if they were forced
to sell their homes at a reduced rate they would be unable to afford
any other home in any other area. They are concerned hat any area
in San Luis Obispo can be re-zoned to house the homeless. Most of
the people I talked to are concerned at the outrageous rent - $2400 -
for the house on Johnson Avenue . Some told me they would be glad to
rent their home at that price. They are concerned with the increase
in water rates and know that sewer rates will be the next to go up
and they are not willing to see their tax monies going to the .People' s
Shelter. The article in the Telegram-Tribune regarding the cost per
month in operating the People ' s Shelter is exorbiant, this is the
tip of the iceberg, other costs are not mentioned.
We have he rd glowing reports from the area churches, but I know
for a fac;hat some people in the congregations are very upset with
having to shelter these people .
Mr. Harter and I are also concerned, we have had enough. Miss Stewart
indicates the people who are turned away from the shelter do not stay
around the area, of course they do, I see them around Mitchell Park
and around our area. -
I would like to know why the PlanninCommission had two meetings on
this subject - one on Aug"st 249 1969, no citizen attended this;
one commissioner addressed the commission as a citizen. The other
meeting was held on September 28, 1988. I attended this meeting.
It was out and dried, the planning commission had already made up
their minds which way they would vote . I felt Janet Kourakis, who
works with People' s Shelter and Pat Gerety who has a residential
care facility should not have voted on this subject. Pat Gerety
commission procedures - why was she given
prepped Miss Stewart on
this special consideration?
Sincerely,
Dora L. Harter (Mrs . ) Al Harter
770 Buchon St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RECRUV.E6
NOV 1. :;fig.
C"CLERK
SAN LWSOgGM-CA
�un�►�►II�IIill�ll°; city M�I��:
ci o san tuts osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT alarms ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; BY: Glen Matteson, Assoc. Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a'temporary use permit for a homeless
shelter at 1333 Johnson Avenue (A 114-88).
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution (Exhibit A) to deny .the appeal.and affirm
the Planning Commission's action.
INTRODUCTION
People's Shelter has applied for a use permit to operate a homeless shelter in a house in
the office zone on Johnson Avenue near Pismo Street. Since the city's Zoning Regulations
do not list shelters, the application was filed under a section allowing unspecified
temporary uses, though the applicant intends to apply to make the facility a permanent
use if the Zoning Regulations are amended to allow them. (The Zoning Regulations
amendment is a separate but related item on this agenda.) The Planning Commission
approved the request, but several neighborhood residents and others have appealed to the
City Council, citing concerns with traffic, health and safety, and neighborhood
compatibility.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Staff expects no significant citywide impacts from approving or denying the request. The
severity of neighborhood impact is the crux of this appeal. Staff and the Planning
Commission thought they would not be significant; many area residents disagree.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION
The council must resolve the appeal. If the council postpones action, the applicant will
have to continue rotating the shelter among receptive local churches, and probably try to
find another permanent location.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant wants to operate a shelter for homeless people in an existing house. The
city's Zoning Regulations do not list homeless shelters, but the council is considering
an ordinance to allow them with use-permit approval in the office and some other zones.
Unless adopted as an urgency measure, that ordinance would take effect December 16, at
the earliest, under the council's regular meeting schedule. The applicant, hoping to
have the shelter in operation early in October, applied for a use permit under a zoning
provision which t)llows case-by-case consideration of requests for temporary uses (Section
17.08.020.1). ThVapplication was heard by the Planning Commission because the site is
in•a special considerations (S) zone.
11111111IIIIIIIIIPp11§1 city Of San LUIS OBISPO
a COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Homeless shelter appeal
Page 2
The applicant intends to apply for a use permit within the next few months to allow the
shelter as a permanent use, if (1) the temporary use permit is approved, (2) the council
amends the Zoning Regulations to allow permanent shelters in the O zone, and (3) the
facility can be developed as hoped by the applicant.
The Planning Commission approved the request subject to conditions on parking, occupancy,
management, and review after six months or upon complaint. Several neighborhood
residents and others have appealed to the City Council, citing concerns with traffic,
health and safety, and neighborhood compatibility.
Data Summary
Address: 1333 Johnson Avenue
Applicant: People's Shelter (Lawrence Sage, Treasurer)
Representative: Beverly Stewart (Executive Director)
Property owner: Dennis Ahearn
Zoning: O-S; R-2
Land Use Element map: office; medium-density residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt as a minor change in land-use limitations
for an existing building.
Site Description
The 21,025-square-foot site is divided by the 70-foot-wide, 20-foot-deep San Luis Obispo
Creek channel. The part of the site with frontage on Pismo Street is vacant, has very
little level area, and has some trees, shrubs, and grasses. The part of the site with
frontage on Johnson Avenue, zoned O-S, has about 9,700 square-feet of level ground. It
is occupied by two pre-1940's houses. Several trees growing in the channel extend over
the top of the bank. (See attached site plan.) Surrounding uses include the
Telegram-Tribune offices and printing plant, houses which have been converted to offices,
houses, and apartments (attached vicinity map).
Proiect Descriotion
The one-bedroom house close to the creek would continue to be used as a separate
residential rental. The five-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot house would be used as a shelter
for up to 24 homeless people. The shelter would provide temporary accommodations while
helping clients to become more self-reliant and to find other housing. Meals would be
prepared off-site and brought to the shelter. Laundry probably will be done off-site as
well. (See also the applicant's statement, attached.)
The applicant will make minor changes to the house's interior and minor outdoor
improvements, including paving and security fencing.
I
f + �
city of San lues OBlspo
Njj% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Homeless shelter appeal
Page 3
Evaluation
1. Summary
State and city policy favor development of a shelter for homeless. While this site is
not ideal, the applicant selected it after a long search for potential sites. It is
reasonably well suited for the type of use. Staff is concerned that the maximum number
of occupants proposed by the applicant greatly exceeds current zoning standards. Even
with an exception to the current population-density limit, the maximum occupancy
requested can be accommodated only with some off-site parking. Staff supports allowing
the use for a trial period, with minimal site improvements. Additional improvements
should be provided within times ranging from 90 days to one year, if the site is to be
used as a permanent shelter.
2. Neighborhood privacy and security
Testimony at the Planning Commission hearing reflected the widely differing viewpoints on
how the project would change neighborhood desirability. Several residents and property
owners are concerned that the shelter's clients, or prospective clients who would not be
accepted under the shelter's rules, would loiter nearby, leading to such problems as
trespassing, noise, and littering. Shelter advocates maintain that having a shelter
reduces problems from people who might otherwise be living on the streets, and that
problems have been avoided at the shelter's temporary locations. Staff and the Planning
Commission thought the shelter's record at the temporary locations and site's location at
the edge of a commercial area justified approval at least on a trial basis.
3. General plan policy
A. Land Use Element
This element does not specifically address shelters. However, it does make the
following relevant statements about areas designated for office development.
"Professional office uses should be encouraged to develop in peripheral areas of the
central business district ... to ... provide a transition between the heavily used
commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods."
The shelter would preclude a conventional office from occupying the property.
However, the shelter would provide some services like those provided in offices. It
would provide a transition between the newspaper plant and conventional dwellings.
The element also says, "Where historic or architecturally significant buildings are
located in districts designated for office use, the city should encourage their
long-term conversion and conservation rather than replacement." The house is not
designated as a significant structure in the city's Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines. While it has an attractive, early 1900's style, past additions to the
rear are not in character. Its continued use and upgrading as a residential
property will help preserve neighborhood architectural character.
�-3
►►m�� ►IVlllfl���l ����► city of San LUIS o81Spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Homeless shelter appeal
Page 4
Further, "As an alternative to or as a transition in professional office areas,
medium-density residential uses may be conditionally considered." The medium-density
residential designation (R-2 zoning) excludes most types of group housing; the
council has indicated that shelters should be considered in office zones, but
excluded from R-2 zones.
B. Housing Element
One goal is "Assistance programs to meet the housing needs of those unable to obtain
any type of housing in the market due to circumstances beyond their control." Also,
program #11 says, "The city will provide density bonuses or other incentives for
housing affordable to low- and moderate-income families..." Clearly, the Housing
Element favors a city role in helping to provide basic shelter.
4. Code requirements & site suitability
According to the Zoning Regulations' occupancy standards, use permits for group
housing in the O and R-2 zones must stipulate an occupancy limit reflecting habitable
space within buildings and available parking, and not to exceed 25 people per acre
(Section 17.20.020). Considering a maximum 24 guests and two staff, and two tenants
in the smaller house, the resulting population density would be about 58 per acre.
At 25 group-quarters residents per acre, and excluding staff and the separate rental,
the shelter could have at most 12 occupants. Staff is recommending that the council
amend the Zoning Regulations so homeless shelter occupancy limits can be set above
the normal zoning limits, as part of action on a use permit.
The facility, considered a dormitory under the Uniform Building Code, would be
limited to 26 occupants at the rate of one person per 50 square feet of floor area in
sleeping rooms. If two staff are present at night, not more than 24 guests could be
accommodated. (The maximum daytime occupancy, including the floor area of the
kitchen, would be 27 people.)
The building code does not have specific requirements for restroom facilities for
shelters. However, the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C, provides "a guideline" for
dormitories which may be used, at the discretion of the building official. If that
guideline was applied, assuming the shelter would be occupied by eight or fewer females
and more than twelve males, these facilities would be needed: three toilets; three
sinks; one bathtub, and two showers. The two existing bathrooms provide one of each,
meaning that without additional facilities, the shelter could be limited to 18 occupants
(at most, ten males and eight females). Higher occupancy could be allowed temporarily,
with upgrading of plumbing facilities according to a schedule.
Conditions 3, 4, and 5 concern occupancy.
State rules require the shelter's primary entrance to be accessible by wheelchair.
The house's raised foundation will make handicap accessibility difficult, though it
could be provided by a ramp to the back door, which the applicant intends to make the
primary entry, or to the front door.
II�M���►►►IVIIII@�=��11 city of san tuts oBispo
oft m , COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Homeless shelter appeal
Page 5
If this site is to become a permanent shelter, the potential for expansion of
the facility should be considered. The potential to expand the site is limited
by the creek and an established commercial use (the newspaper). The house could
be expanded substantially only by removing the smaller house and rearranging the
driveway and parking, or the smaller house could be converted to shelter space,
possibly for intact families. Also, even if the council allows double the
population density normally allowed in group housing, the site could have no
more than 24 clients.
5. Site development
A. Access/circulation/parking
Staff thinks that the shelter will cause less traffic volume than would be
generated by an office or the number of residents which would be permitted in
conventional dwellings.
One existing ten-foot-wide driveway on Johnson Avenue near the center of the
site would provide vehicle access for both the rental house and the shelter.
Engineering staff has noted that a 16-foot driveway is required by city
standards and would be desirable to reduce delays on Johnson Avenue due to
vehicles turning into the driveway.
The proposed zoning provision for shelters would require two parking spaces for
the facility plus one space for each six occupants, or a total of six spaces for
the applicant's proposal. This appears to be a reasonable requirement
considering the number of clients expected to have cars and the number of staff
likely to be on the site at the same time. Staff believes keeping one
additional parking space for the small rental house meets ordinance
requirements.
The applicant's site plan shows the only way to fit seven spaces on the site in
a manner allowing most vehicles to exit in a forward direction. This
arrangement, however, requires three tandem parking pairs. Normally, tandem
parking can be allowed with special approval only where each tandem pair is for
the exclusive use of occupants of a certain dwelling. Staff and the Planning
Commission preferred to provide fewer, but more conveniently accessible, spaces
on site, with additional spaces offsite. Four independently accessible spaces
with adequate back-up space for turning could be arranged facing the rear
property line (away from Johnson Avenue). This arrangement would also allow a
12- to 16-foot-wide landscaped setback between the top of the creek bank and the
driveway/backup area, where the proposed site plan shows much less. (The
applicant has not secured off-site parking. Some offices on the opposite side
of Johnson Avenue have secured off-site parking in the Vons [formerly Safeway]
parking lot.)
Conditions 6, 7, 8, and 9 concern the driveway and parking.
I
���H�i�iI�IIfIIII�pou� N city of san Luis oBispo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Home shelter appeal
Page 6
B. Creek habitat, drainage, and flooding
Staff and the Planning Commission are satisfied that the lack of proposed
changes within the channel and the conditions (10, 11, and 12) will address
these issues.
C. Frontage improvements
City code requires any use receiving use-permit approval to install full
frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, and street paving)
if they do not exist. The Johnson Avenue frontage lacks street trees, which
staff recommends be installed within six months days (condition #13). The Pismo
Street frontage has roadway paving (narrower than standard), but none of the
other required items. The Planning Commission waived the requirement for
frontage improvements, with the understanding that a schedule for providing them
could be established if the applicant applies for a permanent use.
6. S-zone concerns
According to the ordinance adopting the O-S zone, the requirement for use-permit approval
"is intended to require review of projects to ensure the creek is adequately protected,
including that frontage improvements on Pismo Street are installed in a manner sensitive
to the creek." As discussed above, the sidewalk would not be installed now. However,
the design would be subject to Planning Commission approval whenever frontage
improvements occur (condition # 15).
7. Water use
Staff estimates that water use will increase by about 1.85 acre-feet, at most. The
change of use will require a water allocation under the city's regulations. Conditions
11, 20, and 21 clarify the project's status under the Water Allocation Regulations and
minimize water use.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
On September 28, the Planning Commission voted six to none (one absent) to approve the
use permit, with findings and conditions listed in the attached resolution. There was
extensive testimony for and against, summarized in the attached minutes.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may:
1. Uphold the appeal and deny the use permit.
2. Deny the appeal and approve the use permit. The council may add, delete, or modify
the Planning Commission's findings or conditions of approval.
3. Continue action.
►►��irN�IIIIIfl�PA���l� city of san tins osispo
WO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Homeless shelter appeal
Page 7
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department's comments concerning development standards and potential affects were
reported in detail to the Planning Commission, and are generally reflected in the
evaluation above and in the conditions of approval. No other department has stated
support for or opposition to the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution to deny the appeal and approve the use permit, with the
Planning Commission's findings and conditions.
Attached: Vicinity map
Site plan
Floor plan
Exhibit A - Draft resolution to deny appeal and affirm Planning Commission action
Exhibit B - Draft resolution to deny appeal and amend Planning Commission action
Exhitit C - Draft resolution to uphold appeal
Planning Commission resolution approving use permit
Planning Commission minutes, 9-28-88
Applicant's statement
Statements received in support of application
Appeal statement
Statements received in opposition to application
gm 1/A 114-88
I
PV
" Mbit A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER
AT 1333 JOHNSON AVENUE (A114-88)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 28, 1988, considered the application
by People's Shelter for a temporary shelter for homeless in a house at 1333 Johnson
Avenue, and conditionally approved the request upon determining that it conformed with
the general plan and zoning and would not harm public health, safety, or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, Douglas Simmmonds, Charles Marshal, and others have appealed to the
council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered public testimony, project plans, records of the
Planning Commission's action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and affirm the decision of
the Planning Commission.
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 ....... ......, 1988.
................................ ..........
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ci
......... ..............................
ty Clerk
:xhibit B"
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF AND AMENDING A USE PERMIT FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER
AT 1333 JOHNSON AVENUE (A114-88)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 28, 1988, considered the application
by People's Shelter for a temporary shelter for homeless in a house at 1333 Johnson
Avenue, and conditionally approved the request upon determining that it conformed with
the general plan and zoning and would not harm public health, safety, or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, Douglas Simmmonds, Charles Marshal, and others have appealed to the
council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered public testimony, project plans, records of the
Planning Commission's action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the request should be approved, but with
conditions different from those approved by the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and approve the use permit,
with the findings and conditions contained in the attached Exhibit A.
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 .. ... . . . .. . . , 1988.
.. ... .. .. ... ... . . ..... ..... .... . ..... .....
Mayor
ATTEST:
... . ..... ... .. ... . . ..... ... .. .. . .. .. ...
City Clerk
gm I/I l4res
� - 9
ehibit C"
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER
AT 1333 JOHNSON AVENUE (A114-88)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 28, 1988, considered the application
by People's Shelter for a temporary shelter for homeless in a house at 1333 Johnson
Avenue, and conditionally approved the request upon determining that it conformed with
the general plan and zoning and would not harm public health, safety, or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, Douglas Simmmonds, Charles Marshal, and others have appealed to the
council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered public testimony, project plans, records of the
Planning Commission's action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council has determined that the action of the Planning Commission was
not appropriate and the proposed use does not conform with the general plan and zoning
and would harm the public health, safety, or general welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and deny the use permit
request.
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 .. ... .. .. . . . , 1988.
.. .. ... ..... .. ... .. .. . ... . . ... .. ..... .. . . .
Mayor
ATTEST:
.... ..... .. ... ..... .......... ..........
City Clerk
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
C4Ai Officer
d city Attor
........................ ...............
Community Development Director
`pluu u,ln ul•1111111uun111un1, j) ��-J •R •- \ r
•,pp p•p, RII,1r
.. rf1111„11,111„ �lE
� i I,I/III/y11/1111111 1111,1
•i••y 1 1 1,11111/1,If I11t11
11.•
�� y• •111111111111111f•1,
�\ ,111111 •1
ol
0�0
1'
�� p 1 > / Va: O •v 4i� z
qk
? ✓Q!
ONN
� J
O �n
10
o
' O �
a �I
c
lye' p ;• i p /'• ~ '�
-L 7�
O
• f.1' /' O ' � O r
•.°.• �� O, Rel SS �•?
iso..• :.., O � / a a',l� :
p , ' :•
�. p
� � �/. �� P• ,�-:ILS / 1
J •
APPLIGMIT�s PRC Pas BO svM Pt-AN C PAU-04(r PEAU)
.d�.• -.tae
S •
/ phY• 1
�IL
i X � _ ••wo - a
' t• i 4 _ I a ��
£
* —
!- _ mo i- 'ti.l:.i.�._v •[ ._.: I• Y1 ,... ,�}..
ae+u y !
L_
1
� I
OR
TA
\ 1
jOWNSON AYE-L'S
SrM PLAN /�/J
SITE PLAN
r,
C `
JOHNSON AVENUE
gTAFR ar�� 'PG iR&rCDKK6MbED '?ARY.1136- PLA4
. is .. .. �
•- � BR
=VS
FLOOR PLAN
. KIY'cr.Kw DR .
u :. ..
...�: �_...
3
�._ J.{ .�. .
oft SR I
KI•r. s — 1 '..
1k
L f�
i Y eA-rm
tR i
$� 1:
K ' Tjj `
443 S.F. 1 �Z
1335 JOHNSON
vftA e.+
2030 .5. F
BR #1 - office and overflow sleeping (220 sq. ft.)
BR #2, 3, 4, 5 - sleeping (580 sq. ft.)
LR - sleeping (240 sq. ft.)
Dining - dining (day) ; overflow sleeping (night) (280 sq. ft.)
draft
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
September 28 , 1988
PRESENT: Commrs. Charles Crotser , Donna Duerk, Patrick Gerety , William
Roalman , Richard Schmidt , and Chairperson Janet Kourakis .
ABSENT: Commr . Linda Hainline .
OTHERS
PRESENT: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner; Michael Multari , Community
Development Director and Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary .
The minutes of the August 10 and 24 , 1988 meetings were approved as
submitted .
There were no changes to the agenda or public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 . Public Hearing: Use Permit A114-88. Request for a temporary use
permit to a I low a nome I ei—s—s efi Iter; 1333 Johnson Avenue ; 0-S zone ;
People ' s Shelter of San Luis Obispo County ( Lawrence Sage ) ,
applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended approval of the
request as a temporary use, with findings and conditions concerning maximum
occupancy , parking , frontage improvements , drainage , landscaping ,
management, and review upon complaint, contingent upon the City Council
approving a density exception. He noted the receipt of letters of
opposition from Doug Simmonds , Pamela Ricci , Shirley Benson , and Dr . Robert
Idey .
Commr . Schmidt noted a sidewalk on Pismo Street could be cantilevered .
Commr . Crotser asked about Housing Element guidelines and density bonuses .
Staff responded that the City Attorney did not think the affordable housing
bonus was meant to apply to service-oriented uses .
Chairperson Kourakis noted that she spoke with Ruth Worship , who felt this
facility would be successful as long as there was qualified supervision .
Commr . Kourakis also spoke with Beverly Stewart about commission
procedures. Commr. Kourakis also stated that she had worked as a volunteer
with People ' s Shelter.
Commr. Gerety also stated he spoke with Ms . Stewart about commission
procedures.
.;ommr. Schmidt stated he spoke with Mr . Morgenstern and asked him to speak
about his concerns at the meeting .
Commr. Crotser stated he also spoke with Ms . Stewart about her concerns . �
P.C. Minutes
September 28, 1988
Page 2 .
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Beverly Stewart, Director of the People ' s Shelter, PO Box 4610, San Luis
Obispo, discussed program specifics , staff supervision , loitering control ,
and stated there were no drug or alcohol users allowed in the shelter . She
did not believe turning away such clients would result in their remaining
in the neighborhood. She discussed the Salvation Army shelter. She stated
there had never been any violence at her shelter. She did not believe
transient activity would increase in Mitchell Park due to the shelter
locating at the site. She discussed in detail the strict shelter rules and
regulations. She felt a good track record was necessary before other
cities would participate in housing the homeless . She encouraged concerned
citizens to observe shelter operations . She stated she would like to
increase the occupancy to 25 in order to be cost-effective. She stated
there was significant community support for the People ' s Shelter .
Commr . Crotser asked if the staff-recommended conditions were acceptable to
her . Ms . Stewart replied that she was concerned about the sidewalk
improvement requirement and subsequent funding.
Commr . Gerety asked where those who were turned away from the shelter went .
Ms . Stewart stated they went to the Kansas Avenue site. She discussed the
shelter ' s screening process and qualification of clients . She felt her
shelter could prove to be a checkpoint for some of the existing loitering
problems .
Quentin Ogren , 237 Del Mar , strongly supported the application . He
discussed his parish participation with the program and stated it was a
very positive experience. He was very impressed with the screening process
and the competence of the shelter staff. He felt this site was a
definitive solution .
Eugene Miller, 1325 Pismo, felt there were traffic problems on Johnson
Avenue which made this a bad site for the shelter . He also felt there were
flooding problems .
Paul Florsky , 3204 Flora , spoke in favor of the permanent shelter. He
stated there were no neighborhood complaints during the two-month program
that his parish participated in . He believed the program was effectively
run and had an excellent track record in helping the homeless . He
encouraged commission support of this application.
Ernest Thompson admitted there was initial trepidation in hosting the
shelter at his church, but stated that his Board of Directors were swayed
after reading the shelter manual and exploring their success rate. He
stated: the experience had been absolutely positive and urged people to
observe the operation to allay their doubts.
George Ridgeway , 1022 Yarrow , stated there were no neighborhood objections
to St . Stephen ' s Church hosting the homeless and stated the effort had been
thoroughly successful . He commended the use.
.C. Minutes
September 28, 1988
Page 3.
Melanie Roy, 70 Arroyo , stated that her parish also experienced no problems
when they hosted and that the neighborhood had a positive experience with
the program. She urged the commission to look at the successful pattern of
the hosting churches. She stated there was no loitering , lack of
cleanliness or crime problems. She felt the rules were strictly enforced
and that the clients were encouraged to actively pursue finding employment.
Victoria Whitehead, Box 1194, San Luis Obispo, stated the screening process
and program were well organized and encouraged support for solutions to
this growing social problem.
Wes Armstrong, 1318 Johnson , was concerned about Johnson Avenue traffic ,
but commended the shelter efforts and supported the application .
Mike Simms , 1324 Johnson, supported the shelter goals and existing
operation. He was concerned with the loitering problems of Johnson Street
Bridge residents and felt the shelter could not effectively control the
transient traffic . He wanted to see an annual review and limitations
placed on the permit so that this use could not be transferred to a new
owner .
-lean Forsythe, . 1616 Fredericks , stated she was initially apprehensive , but
.hen she participated in the program and observed the operation and now
supported the project. She did not feel the neighborhood would be
adversely affected. She expressed concern that 24 adults would only have
use of two bathrooms . She felt the city should share in the cost of the
sidewalk improvement .
David 7rabel , 1263 Pismo, was concerned with existing transient problems
and the increased influence of those turned away from the shelter on the
already burdened Mitchell Park. He was impressed with shelter goals , but
felt the area already had too many transient-related problems .
Charles Marshall , PO Box 1182, was against the location and felt the
neighborhood already had significant problems due to transients . He
discussed problems he had with property on Archer Street when homeless were
housed there. He preferred that the churches continue their hosting
instead of choosing a permanent location for this use.
M . R . Morgenstern , 1109 Palm , was opposed to the project and felt Mitchell
Park was already heavily impacted. He felt property values would decrease
and was concerned with increased foot traffic and loitering . He discussed
vandalism and robberies by indigents . He did not feel exceptions should be
made for the use at this site. He suggested a condition that limited.
placing other shelters close to Mitchell Park.
Anna Alexander, 30 E1 Mirador, stated that she served as a shelter hostess
ind felt the administration was excellent. She stated there was strict
screening and cleanliness and felt the operation should be observed by
those in opposition. She did not believe the People ' s Shelter should have
to keep moving and that a permanent location was important.
P .C. Minutes
September 28, 1988
Page 4 .
Eileen Spears , 519 Brizzolara , was in favor of the project and stressed the
need for a permanent location to maximize efficiency and effectiveness of
the program.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing.
Glen Matteson noted the memo from Captain Chilquist , which stated that that
police department had not experienced major problems with shelter clients ,
but stated a concern about curtailing the Salvation Army effort and the
increased possibility of police involvement with those displaced people.
Commr . Crotser stated he was impressed with the staff report and public
testimony . He supported the temporary use permit, but was concerned with
the number of people on-site and the adequacy of the plumbing. He was also
concerned with the fence height along the creek and the frontage
improvement requirement on Pismo Street . He felt density of 24 persons
could be acceptable.
Commr . Duerk did not feel the use would affect traffic flow. She was
concerned with the density as it related to parking and plumbing issues .
She preferred limiting the number of persons to 18 or 20. She did not feel
Mitchell Park problems would increase. She was also concerned with the
Pismo Street sidewalk requirement.
Staff did not believe flooding would be an issue .
Commr . Gerety asked about deferring sidewalk installation . Staff replied
that was an option. Commr. Gerety stated he was impressed with the
church and community participation and felt the city should support this
shelter. He felt permanent locations were needed throughout the county and
that if San Luis Obispo started the commitment, other cities may follow.
He stated he would support the use on a temporary basis and that occupancy
should not exceed 26 persons. He stated he would support the permanent use
if persons were limited to 12 to conform with density standards . He agreed
that any shelters should be separated , not concentrated in one area .
Commrs . Schmidt and Kourakis generally concurred with previous comments .
They felt the Pismo Street frontage improvement should be waived for the
temporary use permit. They stated they would both support this use , with
an additional condition limiting this use to this applicant only .
Chairperson Kourakis added that this was a unique social problem that
needed attention far beyond land use issues .
Commr. Roalman moved to approve the temporary use permit, subject to
recommended findings and conditions , adding condition 22 to limit the use
to this applicant only , and with a revised parking condition .
,C. Minutes
.,eptember 28, 1988
Page 5.
Commr . Schmidt seconded the motion , Resolution No . 4051 -88.
Commr . Crotser suggested waiving the requirement of frontage improvements .
The motion-maker and second agreed.
Commr . Gerety stated he could not support a permanent density exception .
Commr. Duerk stated that she agreed with the temporary use, but would
expect the occupancy issue to be further discussed if there is a request
for a permanent use permit.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Roalman , Schmidt , Crotser , Duerk , Gerety and
Kourakis.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commr. Hainline.
The motion passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2 . Public Hearin Use Permit U1396 . Request to allow an addition
to rent Hospital;1TThnson Avenue ; 0-S zone ; French Hospital
Medical Center, Inc . ( William Adams ) , applicant . ( Continued from
August 10 and 24 , and September 14 , 1988 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commr . Gerety had to leave the meeting .
Michael Multari recommended continuance of this item to the next regular
meeting , as there was not sufficient information available to proceed .
Chairperson Kourakis determined there was no one in the audience desiring
to speak to this item.
Commr . Schmidt moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting .
Commr . Duerk seconded the motion .
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Schmidt , Duerk , Crotser , Roalman and Kourakis .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commrs . Gerety and Hainline.
The motion passes.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 4051-88
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of the San
Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California on September 28,
1988, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. A
114-88 by People's Shelter of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
Temporary use permit to allow a homeless shelter.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
on file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1333 Johnson Avenue
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Office; Medium-density Residential
PRESENT ZONES:
O-S, R-2
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections,
investigations and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of
testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the
following circumstances:
1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health,
safety, or welfare of persons living or working on the site or
in the vicinity.
2. The project is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding development.
3. The proposal conforms to the general plan and meets zoning
ordinance requirements, including the concerns of the special
considerations zone.
/-41 /
Resolution No. 4051-88
Use Permit A 114-88
Page 2
4 . The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental
review as a minor change in land-use limitations for an
existing building.
5. No public purpose would be served by strict compliance with the
six-foot fence-height limit.
6. Required site improvements are commensurate with establishing
the shelter as a temporary use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. A 114-88 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. This use permit shall expire one year after establishment of
the use, provided that at any time the applicant may apply and
receive approval for a homeless shelter as a permanent use
under zoning provisions then in effect.
2 . Occupancy of the shelter by more than 12 clients shall require
approval of an exception to zoning density limits by the City
Council, through action on an ordinance amendment or an
affordable-housing incentive under existing regulations. In no
case shall overnight occupancy of the shelter exceed 26 people,
including guests and staff.
3 . The use permit shall be subject to review by the Planning
Commission six months after establishment of the use or upon
violation of any condition. Also, the Planning Commission
shall review the use permit upon receipt by the Community
Development Department of any reasonable, written complaint.
At the review hearing, the Planning Commission may add, delete,
or modify conditions of approval or revoke the use permit.
4 . All overnight accommodations shall be provided inside the
building.
5. Meals shall be provided only for the overnight guests of the
shelter.
6. Applicant shall provide at least the following parking spaces.
For the smaller house: one space. For the shelter: two
spaces plus one space for each six occupants. Of these, at
least four spaces shall be on-site, independently assessable,
conforming with city dimension standards, and allowing exit
from the site in a forward direction. Other parking spaces may
be provided off-site, subject to approval of an administrative
use permit for off-site parking as provided in the Zoning
Regulations. On-site parking shall be provided prior to
occupancy. Off-site parking shall be provided within 90 days
of occupancy. / �
Resolution No. 4051-88
Use Permit A 114-88
Page 3
7. Applicant shall provide a suitable, all-weather, dust-free
surface for driveway and parking prior to occupancy, to
approval of Community Development Department staff.
8. Applicant shall provide permanent driveway and parking paving
and striping to city standards, within six months of
establishing the use.
9. Applicant shall provide a driveway at least 16 feet wide for a
distance of at least 20 feet from the back of sidewalk, within
six months of establishing the use.
10. Applicant shall provide for site drainage to the creek,
including erosion control, to the approval of Community
Development Department and Public Works Department staff, prior
to occupancy.
11. Applicant shall prepare plans for landscaping and fencing,
including erosion-control and privacy planting along the creek
bank, for approval by Community Development Department staff.
Fence design shall include materials and colors. Landscaping
shall include drought-tolerant planting. All landscaping and
fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan
within six months of occupancy.
12 . A height exception to allow an eight-foot tall fence along the
northerly and westerly property lines is hereby approved. The
fence along the creek bank shall not exceed six feet in height.
13 . Applicant shall install three street trees along Johnson
Avenue, to city standards and in locations approved by the City
Arborist, within six months of occupancy.
14. Frontage improvements on Pismo Street are hereby waived.
15. Design of frontage improvements on Pismo Street shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
16. Prior to occupancy, the facility shall be inspected by staff of
the Fire Department and of the Building Division. Health and
safety features, including but not limited to smoke detectors,
fire extinguishers, and emergency exiting shall be brought into
conformance with current codes and the recommendations of the
inspectors.
�-a 3
Resolution No. 4051-88
Use Permit A 114-88
Page 4
17. All occupants, potential occupants, and site visitors shall be
screened and supervised according to the project description
submitted by the applicant
18. Prior to occupancy, owner shall dedicate an easement over San
Luis Obispo Creek for drainage, maintenance, and access
purposes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
19. The metal awning shall be removed from the northerly side of
the building prior to occupancy. The site shall be maintained
in a neat and orderly manner. Any plants included in the
approved landscaping plan which die shall be replaced.
20. The shelter shall require an allocation as provided in the
Water Allocation Regulations, in an amount determined by the
Community Development Director. The date of Planning
Commission action on this use permit shall be the date the
allocation is assigned.
21. Applicant shall install prior to occupancy and continuously
maintain shower heads not exceeding 2 .5 gallons per minute.
Applicant shall install within 90 days of occupancy and
continuously maintain toilets not exceeding 1.5 gallons per
flush .
22 . • Occupancy shall be limited to the People's Shelter of San Luis
Obispo unless approved by the Planning Commission.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo, upon the motion of Commr. Roalman,
seconded by Commr. Schmidt, and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Roalman, Schmidt, Crotser, Duerk, Kourakis, Gerety
NOES: None .
ABSENT: Commr. Hainline
Michael Multari, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: September 28, 1988
�SAN•LUIS•OBISPO
PWME� R P.O.BOX 4610,SAN LUIS OBISPDXA. 9340'
September 14, 1988
San Luis Obispo City Planning Department
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Attn: Michael Multari, Development Director
1333 Johnson Avenue - Temporary Administrative Use Permit
Dear Mr. Multari:
This letter supplements the accompanying application for a
temporary administrative use permit to operate the single-family
dwelling located at 1333 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo as a
residential care facility for the People' s Shelter of San Luis
Obispo County.
Description of Activities
The People' s Shelter is a non-profit corporation that has
been organized to assist those people who are economically
depressed, homeless, and in need of temporary shelter with a goal
of promoting self-sufficiency. The People' s Shelter is a
transitional rehabilitation program for the homeless, but we do
not accept and will not accept current substance abusers or the
mentally ill that are not manageable with prescription medicines.
The People' s Shelter is organized, managed and directed
exclusively by residents of this County.
The services we provide include temporary shelter, placement
counseling, job search, education, training, transportation and
networking with social service agencies and churches. The
People's Shelter will provide meals to its clients that are
prepared offsite.
Daily Schedule
Our daily schedule is divided into two separate time
segments. During the day, our staff conducts case management for
job training, job placement and aptitude testing for our clients.
Michael Multari ,;. \ )
J
September 14, 1988
Page..2 .
Our clients are not permitted to reside. on site during our
daytime hours. We maintain a close and.'continuous: network
with all social service agencies, as well as the police and fire
departments, should any problems arise.
Our operating hours for sheltering begin at 5:3.0 p.m. and
end at 8:30 a.m. the following morning. During those hours, the
building is staffed with a male and female supervisor. For a
part- of _that. time, we regularly staff the premises with an
evening manager and several screeners. Our clients will be
arriving at 5:.30 p.m. to check in and meet with a staff member
for completing the intake interview. Dinner is served at 7:00
p.m: After dinner, we conduct counseling sessions with our
guests until lights out at 11:00 p.m. By 8:30 a.m. the following
day, all guests will vacate the building.
We have strict loitering rules. Anyone hanging around the
property is not allowed to return to the Shelter. To date, this
rule has worked extremely well. An occasional, uninformed
potential client may come to the building during the day, but
that individual is quickly informed of our loitering rules and
sent away.
Facility Arrangements
The fire codes require 50 square feet per person in a
residential care facility and local officials have asked us to
model our facility after existing laws. Although that formula
would permit 40 - 50 individuals to occupy the site, we will
limit occupancy to 25 guests.
We also are informed that we must have one parking space per
six clients. Our application includes the installation of six
parking places and an additional handicapped space in the
backyard of the property. With the creek passing along the
property, we expect some difficulty in installing the parking
spaces, but I am assured that they can be done.
Rarely do we have more than two clients owning automobiles,
but there may be three staff cars on site from time to time. If
additional parking should ever be needed, which could only occur
at night, we would explore temporary alteratives parking with the
adjoining properties owned by the Telegram-Tribune and Safeway.
The plans call for an 8 foot fence to be erected on the
perimeter and in the interior of the property. We have found
that .the fence is a barrier to anyone trying to leave or enter
the premises, and allows us to control any loitering on the
property.
a�
Michaela Multari '
September .14, 1988.
page 3
There are two .showers in the dwelling. One will be
designated for use by .our .women clients and the other, for our
men clients. Reducing water usage will be a priority. We intend
to alter the showerheads with timers and/or pull chains to limit
usage of hot and cold water.
Request
We believe that we provide a vital and important service to
the citizens of San Luis Obispo as well as the individual clients
in need of our placement services. If you have any comments or
questions concerning this application, please call me directly.
We respectfully request your favorable approval of our
application.
Sincerely,
Beverly Stewart
Executive Director
AGENDA t ;
DA;� Nov, I — tTEPJI
li,i!i ili��l�lilil!I� II IIIIi II il�� iil I��
atlySAn
1.0 1 S OBlapo
`-se-sem:"—;r—:... 1,�
— T�°��"=�`r�a 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
- d_��hP�ss.
RE: USs PERMIT A 114-88
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL P::GE 1 (of 2
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of THE PLANNING COMMISSIODi rendered
on 28 SEPTEMBER 1988 which decision consisted of the following (i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) : MOTION TO RECOMMEND ISSUANCE OF
A TEMPORARY PERMIT TO USE THE 5-BEDROOM 2-BATHROOM RESIDED?CE AT
1333 JOIIISON AVENUE AS A SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS HOUSING 2526
PEOPLE. NIGHTLY.
1 . THIS APPEAL IS BASED ON GROUNDS THAT THE 5-BEDROOM, 2-BATHROOM
HOUSE IS TOO SMALL AND FACILITIES TOO INADEQUATE AND LIMITED TO
HOUSE 2$ 26 PEOPLE NIGHTLY. THAT SUCH OVERCRO?JDIITG ?:OULD IINCREASE
FIRE DANiGER, HEALTH AND SANITATION PROBLEMS.
2. FURTIIERMORE, THAT THE SITE IS TOO SMALL TO' SUPPORT THE AAIOUiNT
OF TRAFFIC, PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, IN ADDITION TO
AUXILIARY SERVICES FOR FOOD, LAUNDRY, SUPPLIES, ETC. STAFF AND
VOLUNTEERS NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE SHELTER – – PARTICULARLY
HAVING REGARD TO THE CONSTRICTED TRAFFIC FLOUR AT THIS POINT ON
JOHNSON AVENUE, MAKING INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE SITE DIFFICULT
AND DANGEROUS.
3. ANOTHER SERIOUS CONCERN IS TIIE DELETERIOUS IMPACT ON THE
SECURITY AND TRANQUILITY ON THE RESIDENTS IN NEARBY HOUSES.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
CONTIANED�
LETTER TO MAYOR AND on SEPTEMBER 'i0,. 19S3 (
CCUXCILNEMBERS (COPY ATTACHED
4
Appell nt:
DOUGLAS M. SID,, 1O_I?DS
Date Appeal Received:
Name/Title
Representative
RECEIVED 1 236 PISMO STREET, S.L.O. 93401
OCT, 31988 Address
CrryCLEw( 541 -12-6
SAN UASOMWO.CA
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
alend ed for: �� Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to t eollow'ng departm t(s
MUS �mYr7dNi�i. d/�
City Clerk T—
►►�d��►� i�Pi�i�►l���ii'IPiI it��►ii►�►►����►;i�'jllll city of sAn luis oBispo
I
M�2- ®noi�
�r9 MEN
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Wit....- - '
RE: USE PERMIT A 114-88 PAGE 2 (o£ 2)
APPEAL'TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I , Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of _THE PLANNING COMMISSION rendered
on 28 SEPTEMBER 1985 , which decision consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) : CONTINUED. . . . . . . . ...
'MILE THIS IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND EMOTIONAL ISSUE, IT IS
RESPECTFULLY SUBM'IITTED TH4T IN REVIEfI2dG THIS, THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY AT ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD SURELY BE TO
THE INTERESTS OF THE STABLE, RESPONSIBLE, LAW—ABIDING AND
TAX—PAYING CITIZENS, RATHER THAN TO A SMALL A\T7 CONSTANTLY
CHANGING T'2ANSIENT GROUP, FEW OF T1HOM ARE L=ELY TO BECO'fE
PER1MA1\TE1TT CONTRIBUTT_NG MEMBERS OF THE COlvD1UNITY.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Oil
Appe t:
DOUGLAS M. o !• a
Date Appeal Received: --_---_
Name/Title
1236 PISMO STREET, S.L.O. 93401
Representative
Address
Tel : 541 -1235
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calendared for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
1236 PISMo STREET * * * SAN LUIS OBISPO * * CA 93401 Tei: 541-1236
*Denotes action by Lead Per:nn
Respond by: OCT 3 1988
O )( Hi4'letL
oo
The Hon. Ron Dunin AO M.G;Sn eueDEmen
Cc.-:muncy De�eicpment
Mayor - City of San Luis Obisp Alty.
City Hall, CA 93401 ark-orig. September 30, 1988
Dear Mr, Mayor: O
USE PERMIT A 114-88 1333 JOHNSON AVENUE
My wife and I attended the meeting at City Hall on Wednesday evening,
September 28th, at which time the Planning Commission considered the
issuance of a temporary use permit to allow a homeless shelter to
operate at 1333 Johnson Avenue.
It was our impression that the members had seemingly no interest
in the concerns of the nearby residents and readily accepted the
assurances from the various church representatives - who would no
longer be offering shelter to the homeless - that there would be
no neighbourhood problems.
We are very concerned that the Planning Commission was prepared
to endorse the granting of a temporary use permit for as many as
25 people to occupy the small 5-bedroom house which has only
2-bathrooms - - the guest capacity of a motel, but without the
essential facilities. Does this group living not present very
real fire and sanitation problems? Furthermore, the small site
can surely not comfortably support all the activity and on-site
parking for all the auxiliary services that would be necessary
for food, laundry, supplies, etc. as well as for staff and volunteers.
Another serious question is where will the people sleep who are
turned away each night from the shelter. Under the Johnson Avenue
bridge? Along the creek? In nearby doorways? And who is going
to regulate that situation when the turnaways leave the shelter site?
We realise this is a very controversial and emotional issue, but we
sincerely hope you will give very serious consideration to these
points and other concerns and fears already voiced by nearby
residents. Surely the issuance of a permit to use this small house
for as many as 25 people would circumvent the tried and true laws
and regulations passed by the city over the years to ensure a well
run community.
Yours sinc ,
(Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Simmonds
RECEIVED
SEP 3 0 1988
Ct7V CLERK
/ /�� SAN LUIS OFPSPO CA
�il►�liit iBllllililll������' �►illll�I�IIj
1I illli cityo s lues oBis o
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I , Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of 't.� .� — C �'%' iii I I /0 rendered
on '�' ? which decisiJ consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needled) :
7_� r4yl � : jcE'.� ' l lc •— 4l` Ivc� �I 't
l y ) - y'
���. yL,l i� ' c. : � � � � CrC(e� -it ►/`S
iz-
1 /
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appe-11 t: L
'b' r.
Date Appeal Received: � l
Name/Tit e
RECEIVED Representative
SE? 30 1988 1 L : ( D&-
Cir CLEW Addr//ees s ,J
SAN LUIS OF11SPO.CA L L�/
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
CElend fo : // Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the follow'ng depart ntl(
• MAWC-�J.o �o�».�r��reaor
City Clerk
211—
A_PP_,AL TO CITY COUITCIL
US 21 P 3M,.IIT A i 1 13'33 JOI-DISOPi AVENUE".
!E, TliE UcTDERSIG`FT.'D HCMEO ,'ITERS AND RESIDENTS, HERL'3Y E=ORSE
AND SU- PORT TI-M APPEAL TO CITY COMMIL ACT INST TIL ISSUANCE
OF !1 TEMPCR2RY P ERYIT TO USE TI"IE 5- EDROOi 2-DATIIRCOM RESIDE..C:
AT 1333 JOTL"FSO`% AVL TTNB AS A SHELTER FOR TI3E ITOMELESS HOUSI?'G
25/26 PEOPLE NI=LY.
SIGNATURE NAME Z_ ADDRESS
I //�,� ✓ '
-9we (,� �--- I 1 7 /a-
7r�rn a S
r l_li 4 ✓
//,WW ,�rcii 1� �6
_ _` ".�'.. �...r r� :':-,t.;- 1,. i,t�•-y I�"� J 1 ^)%. `r' -' ii1 - •J".'.�GG . .
n ,�`� 8.3So �1SYU10 l fe�t�a l
.0
APPEAL TO CITY COMICIL
USE PER,,lIT A-114-83 1333 JOHNSON AVENTJE
UE, THE UNDERSIGNED I-IOMEOT:'Ii;ERS AND RESIDENTS, HEREBY E TDORSe
AND SUPPORT THE r1PPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL AGAINST THS ISSUANCE
OF A TEI4:PO UlRY PEMLIT TO USE THE 5-DEDROON 2-DATH'_?OOh' P.";SID `•C:;
AT 1 333 JOISidSOi'I AVENUE AS A SHELTER FG Z TiIE IIONELES3 IIOUSIi'TG
25/26 PEOPLE NIGHTLY.
SIGNATURE NAME & ADDRESS
9=,a
4b Aa,
s• y•d•
F+
em
kZF71 51JD
q31,10 I #3�
(',hci1shnJa T. Slinsl� labs Pismo SLO
ACJ
/
CASS ^
A � +?+
_ . .,
J'
A"ll-inAl., TC, CITY CoUlTol L
7 pll.-•Zl%lll-r —A i 11: jc)jj',\jSON AVEillu-",
..T. THE, UNDEIRSIGNED
(jok-iC07RNEIZS AND PESIDI.,',!,TTS? HERT'71Y :-,DORSE
I,
I0-,T; SU-P"ORT TITE F\Tl,)EAL TO CITY COM-TCIL AGAINST TILE
"ROON .—
L I
PER1.= TO USE THE 5-13EDROM; DATT
NG
SO N- AS A ST-T,-,ITETZ FOR TTTII' HOMELE.SS
..T JMIIZ) AVEITU.J.'
25/ '6 --.-)17'01 LZ N-IGTITLY.
e: ADDRESS
-fAOAI'
k y%.-- 53i l�AnJA
I o/
Z*ze L
SLS.+
C =
1-4 4�j
W 14
4,1 errier c, 1Y,4 jerlor-f ;7.�40 734feW
/J/,o h'I/ ep y-ey sr
/
L3
*Denotes action by Lead Person
Respond by: _
N3l,T0 Lkl,TDUN` TO:— _ ❑Council
vel-it:YOR RON DUTPT [3 CAC
VICE-i-:AYOR PEIToTY RAP PA ❑city l:"y.
CCU?TCILT'iL'BZ? PEG PIN_iL2D ❑Ceti:-orig,
CO1T':CILT•'I_eziBi JERRY T'i. REISS 0
COUTC=1 :iI� ? ALLEN I':. SiTPLF, Q
SUBJECT: CCUi?CIL H ZEIPTG OCTOBEi3 4, 19S8
ITi 3 :AIRGEI'TCY SHELTER ZO .ING - CR 1383
IT APPEARED THAT, FROM THE OBSERVATIONS AND COT,IDi%NTS OF THE MAYOR
A_�TD COUi`TCILl--lMlBERS AT LAST NIGHT I S MELTING, THAT Tiy DIRECTION OF
THEIR THIITI>IlTG IN-DICATZD TITAT THEY -IOULD, AFTER FURTHE-R STUDI S, DE
p'`TP P r n� - �- � P T HO=LESS fir; :r 'aIOUS
ERZ : TO ASS AN 0 DIN,42 E .I'•IITTII�G I C1 Li�S SHELT'S— i V:_,
?ARTS CF Ti C2TY, BUT TiOT IN ZONES R-1 AI•� a-2.
BUT TRIS DO ,S i;CT TAI'M INTO CONSIDERATION THE PLIGHT OF TT%.
U:FORTUi'i_AlE HONE01,T ERS WHOSE PROPERTIES A_-PIE :SIGHT AT THE BOUITDARY
LINE OF AN R-1 OR R-2 ZONE, PARTICUL_I,RLY IF SUCH PROPERTIES DIRECTLY
ABUT A SITZ: PLA:,-a%71-;D FOR USE AS A HCNELESS SHELT-ER. SUCH A.N ACTUAL
CASE EXCISTS IIITH T71-m 1 333 JOHTTSON AVENUE PI OPERTY USE ?=I''IT _".)VEST
A 11 :-SG.
T I✓R ,,FGTL, TO BE FAIR IN SUCH CAS S, SHOULD NOT A PRCVISICIJ OR
RESTRICTION BE INTCLUDIED THAT ANY SUCH HOMELESS SHELTER KILY NOT BE
ESTABLISH= T.•i-ITHIN A GIVEN DISTANCE - SAY `'500 Yt1ZDS AT LEAST - OF
AiTY R-1 OR R-2 PROPERTY. THIS 71OULD ENSURE SOT-lE BUFFER ZONE FOR
NEARBY HOMZO?,rDTERS AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF UNPLEAS.' YT INCIDENTS
,AIZ BEHAVIOUR AND ALLAY THEIR APPREHENSIONS ABOUT THE DO!-.,NGR DIIJG
EFFECT ON THEIR =ROPERTY VALUES.
GLAS SIT-IIID TDS
OCTOBER 59 19SS 1236 Pismo STREET, SANT LUIS ODISPO, 93401
COPY: MR. MICHALL P'fULTA�RI, DE DLOPT-TE NT DIRECTOR.
RECF- 1 V ED
OCT' 51988
crrecLEW
SAN LW4�'�'CA
- 3�
DOUGLAS SIMMONDS
1236 PISMO STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Tel: 541-1236
RECEIVED
Mr. Glen Matteson
Associate Planner SEP 27 1988
Planning Department C.trotSan Luis Ob-soo
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8110 September 26, 1988
Dear Mr. Matteson:
USE PERMIT A 114-88 1333 JOHNSON AVENUE
I am writing with reference to the proposed use of the above residence
as a homeless shelter. My wife and I wish to register a strong protest
against the issuance of a permit to the People' s Shelter of San Luis
Obispo, as we feel such usage would be most inappropriate at that
location. Our reasoning is as follows:-
NOISE FROM LIVING ACTIVITY The probable noise level from some 25
people living in and around one comparatively small residence would
surely be unreasonable in this residential neighbourhood where the
houses are built quite close together on small lots.
DANGER Many of the homeless to be sheltered there are likely to have
a background of anti-social and possibly aberrant behaviour of various
types and this would present a possible threat to the existing residents
which include the elderly, young single women and impressionable young
children. The fact that many of the homeless have reached that
unfortunate state through failure to conform to the normal standards
of societal behaviour presents a very real potential for problems of
one kind or another in the area . . . . . . the accosting of young females,
panhandling of passersby, 'working' the adjacent supermarket parking
lot for handouts of small change, loafing around the bridge and creek
area oftentimes in an unkempt state, drinking, etc. and generally
creating an atmosphere of unpleasantness and insecurity in the
neighbourhood. We feel there is ample justification for assuming
there would be a very real potential for such trouble.
PROPERTY VALUES The presence of such a shelter for the homeless would
inevitably have a lowering effect on property values in the area. We
have very recently moved to San Luis Obispo as much for its recognized
high levels of stability, security, general respectability and virtual
absence of crime, as for its charming ambience and beauty. Our own
recently purchased property near the corner of Pismo Street is perhaps
the nearest physically to the 1333 Johnson house and there is a clear
sightline from the back of our property across the creek to the rear
of the Johnson Street house with an open view from one to the other.
To sum up, we think it would be reasonable to say there are so many
possibilities for problems and resultant deterioration in the level
of tranquility and pleasant, respectable living now enjoyed here, that
we and the many neighbouring residents are fully justified in vigorously
protesting against the issuance of the proposed use permit to allow a
homeless shelter at the Johnson Avenue addre
Yours sin ere ,
`_ s Simm nds �/ -
SEP 28198 ' -±`'`
Cay of San lws OOIVO
_ \7LI��1✓v"'�4,/t. . . ._ CammunhyDevebWnem
Lla .
� � �, , �y�,� � � � lar► �J��.. - � .
- %t� OJTK/
10
✓�. , ,,r I �� ..�% ,ten-�'krQ�4 �x �nGw�A .:�•il�
CIM
L."
c.� � ccs of. v�
► ofso Scr) GJL4�)Cl-mo lane,
it'1,44sco-,cjero 0p
x c 5 Lo ply
RECEIVED
September 26, 1988 SEP 27 }
""'of$7n lu:s Obilpp
C01rm2t,Dt.',,C:neat
Planning Cormnizaion
City of San Luis Obis o
P. 0. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 913406-8100
Re: Use Permit A 114-88
People's Shelter
1333 Johnson Avenue
Dear Sirs:
As the owner of a residence at 1411 Johnson Avenue, one
block from the proposed homeless shelter for 35 people, I wish
to express my strong opposition to the use permit. I have spent
most of the last 25 years living in Berkeley, California, and I
have seen the devastating consequences of locating facilities of
this type in residential neighborhoods. The problem of home-
lessness must be dealt with, but hopefully not dealt with in a
way that in other communities has led to the destruction of
precious, irreplaceable old town neighborhoods. Our neighborhood
is fragile, as are all old, close-in neighborhoods, and we ask
that you carefully consider the long term effects of this action
on our homes and our :future.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. Robert H. Iding
1328 1xch Street
Berkeley, Ca 94708
and
1411 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo
'l
September 28, 1988
Janet Kourakis, Chairperson
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
SUBJECT: Use Permit A 114-88
Dear Chairperson Kourakis:
I live at 1240 Pismo Street, directly across the creek from the site of the proposed
homeless shelter. Because of the proximity of the site to my residence, my security and
privacy are directly affected by the proposal. I am sympathetic to the plight of the
homeless, but I do not feel that the selected site is a good location for a shelter for a
variety of reasons. The following paragraphs highlight my concerns:
1. Land Use:
The site was recently rezoned from C-N, Neighborhood Commercial, to O, Office, which was
a change I supported from both land use and neighborhood compatibility standpoints. In
terms of land use, the site is too small and constricted to comfortably support most C-N
uses and, therefore, the office zoning is more appropriate. In terms of neighborhood
compatibility, residential conversions to offices generally comfortably coexist with
residential uses since most have limited nighttime activity.
With the new office zoning, I knew that conditions at the site would ultimately change.
I was not particularly concerned with the establishment of office uses on the site since
I figured that the times I'd generally be home would be in the evenings and on weekends
when the offices would be closed. One concern I have with the request is that the
shelter will be fully operational in the evening hours when most nearby residents are
home. Therefore, office uses on the site seem to be a superior land use choice.
2- Density.
I feel adamantly that the proposed shelter should conform with the density limitations
for group quarters contained in the zoning regulations. The proposed occupancy of the
shelter by 25 persons is unacceptable for a 5-bedroom house in an already congested
neighborhood.
I could only support the proposed amendment to the zoning regulations to allow density
exceptions for homeless shelters if specific criteria was provided as to circumstances
where an exception would be appropriate. There are some less congested sites where an
exception to density might be warranted, but not all sites where a shelter might be
contemplated can accept the extra people.
/-3 9
Use Permit A 114-88
Page 2
3. Traffic/Circulation:
Johnson Avenue in front of the proposed shelter is narrow and carries a lot of traffic.
Therefore, ingress and egress to the site is difficult and can often be dangerous. For
these reasons on-site parking and circulation needs to be carefully designed,and planned.
Again I feel, that given the congestion of the area, that exceptions to parking and
driveway standards should not be blanketly given. Parking spaces should be designed to
enable cars to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. Tandem spaces should not be
allowed. The minimum parking requirements for the use should be provided on the site.
I am concerned that approval of the use permit is being contemplated prior to some of
these issues being worked out. For example, there is a proposed condition that off-site
parking requirements be met within 90 days of occupancy. My question is what happens if
those spaces cannot be secured. Would the use permit be revoked because of that? How
can it be guaranteed that visitors to or employees of the shelter will park in spaces
provided off-site?
4. Noise.
At present residents along the block of Pismo Street where I live are subjected to more
than their fair of noise. Noise sources include both Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street and
the Telegram Tribune and Vons. I am concerned with the noise that can be expected with a
shelter housing as many persons as proposed exacerbating existing noise levels.
5. Privacy:
For the past two years that I have lived in my apartment (ever since it was built), the
site has always been used residentially and I have never had any problems or concerns
with activities conducted there. Even though I do not have title to it, my apartment is
my home and I have a real sense of ownership regarding it. I love where I live and I
don't want to move, but I am definitely concerned with the proposal's impacts on my
privacy and sense of security and well being.
All the major windows and the outdoor balcony of my apartment are oriented to the creek
and the project site. I feel to insure that my privacy and that of others in the same
block are preserved that the rear of the shelter site needs to be screened. I realize
that a block wall is proposed, but I am concerned with the condition allowing up to six
months time to lapse before its installation. I also feel that additional planting needs
to be installed between the wall and the top of bank to soften the appearance of the wall
and to enhance screening: As mentioned in the commission's staff report, much of the
creek area vegetation was killed because of the city's giant reed eradication program and
the screening it provided consequently lost.
/- 11a
Use Permit A 114-88
Page 3
6. Frontage Improvements:
I feel with development of the site for a homeless shelter that the sidewalk along the
site's Pismo Street frontage needs to be installed. Currently it is very dangerous to
walk along the short span of Pismo Street without sidewalk before you get to Johnson
because of the amount of and speed of traffic turning onto Pismo from Johnson. Because
most of the shelter residents don't have vehicles and will be walking to and from the
site, this is especially important for public safety.
7. Neighborhood Deterioration:
I have a concern that establishing the site as a homeless shelter will further reinforce
the neighborhood as "homeless central'. Already many residents in the area are concerned
about using Mitchell Park because of the number of homeless people that regularly
congregate there. Other congregation spots are the area around the Toro Street bridge
and the Vons parking lot. While the shelter may not accept all of the people who wish to
stay there because they don't have the appropriate qualifications, it can be expected
that many of the homeless already roaming the neighborhood will tend to also congregate
around the shelter site.
The neighborhood is attractive and well-kept and I don't feel that it should be
responsible for carrying so much of the burden of the city's homeless problem. All of
the sites that I have mentioned are within close proximity to one another and I don't
feel concentrating homeless activity in this area is reasonable or should be promoted.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. I hope that they will be
considered when the Planning Commission is rendering its decision on the shelter
proposal.
Sincerely,
IV474
Pam Ricci
1240 Pismo Street
pr#4:shelter
u..uuwa ouuuu uy ucau rmaun
ixDO.ld by:
RF. CEiVED
OCT,l 7 1988 I�CAO
El GRy Atty. ,.
crvcLEar< gl Clerk-
orig. c,2 • /S, /7 ��
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
METING AGENDA
CRL
cam`-ti.ti -V•.c w �-o � -5 —�
-CT� oq�
hj ( �--
000,
z
�az^saza era,, l/
12 2 Y fjDamo cSE7ut
tf - c 'SaRru'"')fis&#O,CC4934o 1
MEIJING AGENDA
���IIIIII!:lllil DATE "°" ' ITEM *
iii IIINIII�����!II��� I�IR IIIIIC!►1f I� � ��
cityo S� �ls OBISPO
A
4AEy�:'IF�Y!!GGYIIIL'I..
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
October 31 , 1988 Denotes action by Lead Person
MEMORANDUM Respond by:
C�fCouMl
tC0
To: City Council Et-d Atty.
fX Clerk-odg.
From: Toby Ross- ZI-W.MUl-rl/-/
a-7-r.
Subject: Homeless Shelter Update 7 oS S
As anticipated, the homeless shelter issue continues to change almost
daily.
• The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved, in concept, a
plan to improve facilities for a homeless shelter at the
County's Kansas Avenue site. The program is the same as
described in your agenda report.
• The EOC Board of Directors adopted a resolution supporting a
consolidated homeless facility (resolution attached) . The EOC
Board is expected to meet again early this week to discuss
EOC's operation of the shelter. Staff will recommend that EOC
agrees to operate the shelter for 30 days under certain
conditions. (See letter to Tim Ness. )
• The Board of People's Shelter has reaffirmed its intent to
pursue use of a house on Johnson Avenue for a separate
shelter. The client population for this operation continues to
decline as operating costs go up (see EOC Shelter Survey) .
People's Shelter is now serving fewer than ten people per
evening rather than the 20-25 they have contracted to serve.
• County staff has continued to lead efforts to secure modular
units and make other improvements to the Kansas Avenue site.
(See update. )
• City, County and EOC staff continue to search for a site for a
permanent shelter with at least one good prospect under
discussion.
Items 1 , 2a and 2b on the November 1 , 1988 agenda are closely related.
The Council may wish (and I would be prepared to present) an update on the
homeless shelter situation prior to hearing these items.
ZECEIVED
OCT131 RZ
ary cWwc
saw wtsoWPo.G+
RESOLUTION NO. R-88-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, INC., STATING EOC
POLICY POSITION ON SERVICE FOR THE HOMELESS
WHEREAS the Economic Opportunity Commission, as the designated
Community Action Agency of San Luis Obispo County, is responsible for
development and implementation of comprehensive, community-based
programs to alleviate poverty and promote self-sufficiency among the
economically disadvantaged of San Luis Obispo County; and,
WHEREAS there are homeless persons without food, shelter and other
basic human services in San Luis Obispo County. and,
WHEREAS current efforts to resolve the plight of these people have
failed to meet a minimum acceptable level of service; and.
WHEREAS those services provided are not cost effective and are
inequitably delivered; and,
WHEREAS one existing service provider is discontinuing operation
leaving a majority of those homeless without any shelter; and,
WHEREAS City and County Government officials have solicited
expertise and assistance from the Economic Opportunity Commission in
dealing with the homeless problem:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Economic Opportunity
Commission of San Luis Obispo Coynty supports the development of a
single,consolidated homeless facility and comprehensive program designed
to efficiently and cost effectively serve the needs of all homeless persons in
San Luis Obispo and operated by an appropriate, and responsible non-profit
agency.
UPON MOTION of Commissioner Deno, seconded by
Commissioner Diringer, the foregoing Resolution is hereby
passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the EOC Board of
Directors held this 20th day of October, 1988, on a roll call
vote, to wit:
AYES: Deno, Diringer, Mueller, Akman, Calhoon, O'Connor, Dovey
NOES:
ABSENT: Comstock, Johnson, Manchester, Perez, Pinard, Ruiz
Glenna Deane Dovey
Chairman of the Board
ATTEST:
Edd Mueller Joel Diringer
Vice-Chairman Secretary/Treasurer
L't�U 14 U LVI ll. UV eUItI U1v 11 1 1.U lrl 1111JJ1Ua4
' SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, IN(
Homeless Shelter Survey
SALVATION ARMY (KANSAS AVE.)
JULY 1988
Average Daily Population: 18.5
Total Expenses: $ 14,569 (labor = $ 10,656)
Cost per Person per Day: $25.40
AUGUST 1988
Average Daily Population: 19
Total Expenses: $8,359 (labor = $6,875)
Cost per Person per Day: $14.20
SEPTEMBER 1983
Average Daily Population: 23
Total Expenses: $ 11,175 (labor = $7,498)
Cost per Person per Day: $ 16.20
One Day At Random
Tuesday, October 18, 1988
Population: 25
Average Daily Operating Cost (@ $ 1 1,200 mo.) _ $361.29 = 25 clients = $ 14.45
Note: Presently this program has a signif icant transportation cost due to
shelter location. Housing is provided in a trailer located near the Sheriff's
Department, approximately 5.5 miles west of San Luis Obispo. Eliminating
transportation cost would reduce per person, per day cost to approximately
$ 13.90
*Above conclusions drawn from financial statements and reports submitted
by Salvation Army. Reports and statements are not standardized or uniform
and are difficult to interpret.
: I NOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMIS: I
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, INC:
Homeless Slielter Survey
PEOPLE'S SHELTER
JULY 1988
Average Daily Population: 12.5
Total Expenses: $5, 175 (labor = $3,322)
Cost per Person per Day: $14.00
AUGUST 1988
Average Daily Population: 12.5
Total Expenses: $9,050 (labor = $7,436)
Cost per Person per Day: $2335
SEPTEMBER 1988
:A verage Daily Population: 10
Total Expenses: $ 10,974 (labor - $9,2 16)
Cost per Person per Day: $36.58
One Day At Random
Tuesday, October 18, 1988
Population: 6
Average Daily Operating Cost (� $ 1 1,000 mo.) _ $354.85 _ 6 clients = $59.13
Note: Presently this program does not have any rental costs or direct
transportation expenses. A pending rental proposal at $2,400 per month,
plus utility and miscellaneous expenses estimated at $300 would increase
program cost to a conservative estimate of $13,700 per month with a
Population of 10 clients per day, the cost per person per day would climb to:
$45.67.
*Above conclusions drawn from financial statements and reports submitted
by the People's Shelter. Reports'and statements are not standardized or
uniform and are difficult to interpret.
o ° _� _• m ° r7
�.as oa 3 c m CD m O
O C fD fD = m '. to m m b
< N y a tbD m r
m Ch
c ^(D o cn os m,
= m f = m 7- 'w ca
m Qq O ^ 77 N N O m M
.s ,D m O rD aq rn ••p = r
Cil C7 �' 'b 'D ..j
O <O ' y.9 Ch
9 (D y o = a p b
F a (D °a (D m p to
P7 cn
z n fD N m
r, maa W
9 m a) o _
• Oq� co o
C' 00 oc
r
yy� v /ham
O
zKKK z
yC Ocmnvmcn (rn0 � o
►� � C7
H O
� b
0m n ° p p .-.
•"' m C < C .w•. < w w mCL
• m
(D (D O d O' Q per'fD C
C .r .r n (') C/)m m O C p r O z
C m (D p 0 0
►� �. O y m 0n
y � � (D m v d `-? o o` Cl) (� ; N .`7 aITIIT1rv, 3 (� f� g -3 "obclDc�
o o soon — p g p
x cn R' nam = - 9 m � � cn. v' a �. n000c0 ro o °' m � � -- m
C+7 - o r- m0a y -3 _ � MN. m w = C. C. = ' dm N n ID
C1 c o < " w to `r :U c d o m ° C/) b v> >maq n ° -n O
�. m ^+ m m ° n T b ' -� ro = m < = -' ca ro m n m CO - .- Z
a m a ° o n O z (Drr w _m (D -� CD (D a 3 � 0 < o n n b o m CD O
C7 aq
E7 m
° v° 'a3 •a3o to = = y �'agcn 67o um m .j cn
w r. O :U as aq n n �' _, a
"3 C o PC n. m' - m as '- '7 3 Z
Z m c p m CJ oq m m Cn
b m
PC
7 m fD O Z = -7 3 m yC
O a m =. o o
-' (DD w o w :Ey ti n (D r W
x7 Oa ' = o y cn
9
O •c <
r• ''. _' H O z KKzzKzKKK v� O
Zm x= o C/) In '_ Z
Cj o• (D m x O .�
C a < o
a
cncn �a v �o3 �n -3 - -3 �_n �_n �v �no� nacn C/)o �� m QCO M M _ = m ° m cy < � a n
m v ti 0 y °4.0q.
C o n n m ro D S m = =. G7
r m m' m
y a 3
E Domo a<
0 11m39 -t4 < = mD
>CD > Ca^cm m o` m cn �aq mm_ � O v
aq
(D .. '•. y r Z =
0 00
m m w
m 00
S D S y = = m d ,Q O
3
y y °
m o o ao o m m
ro = � = n n {nN :: m
�.
.1 w p m 'p
v O. IV N
m cn
y C
m
C
m
a
�t
E C
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
,r San Luis Ob-soo County, Inc.
_80Ir•dustral Way San Luis Obispo. Calrorr-a 93401 80554- +355
October 27, 1988
Mr. Tim Ness, Acting County Administrator
County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear fir. Ness:
In response to your letter of this date requesting the Economic Opportunity
Commission of San Luis Obispo County assume operation of the homeless
shelter, commonly known as "Kansas Avenue," our staff recommendation to
the EOC Board of Directors will be to agree to a thirty (30) day operational
agreement with the County and City of San Luis Obispo with the following
provisions:
The City and County of San Luis Obispo agree that all government funding of
homeless shelters and/or programs be committed to a single, comprehensive
facility and program effective January 1, 1989.
Such an agreement would be necessary for the EOC Board to approve any
interim measure or long term agreement for EOC operation of any shelter
based on EOC Resolution R-88-03, adopted October 20,1988.
That resolution states, in part, "..... Now, therefore, be it resolved the
Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo County supports the
development of a single, consolidated homeless facility and comprehensive
program designed to efficiently and cost effectively serve the needs of all
homeless persons in San Luis Obispo and operated by an appropriate and
responsible non-profit agency."
The Board, in adopting the aforementioned resolution, clearly stated its
intent to staff that EOC should only involve itself in providing direct services
to homeless when there is a commitment from the funding government
agencies to the "single program concept" to best and most cost-effectively
serve those in need.
t, Providing Community Action Programs to SLO County since 1965
In addition to the above referenced stipulation, some logistical details need
to be worked out such as the need for transportation, etc.
An emergency meeting of the EOC Board of Directors has been called for
Monday, October 31 with your request as the single agenda item. It is our
intent to notify you by the end of business Monday of our Board's decision. !
If you need further clarification of our stated position, please feel free to
contact me or our Community Development Planner, Peter Dunan, anytime
between now and Monday.
Since
Elizab h"Bi ' Ste' berg
Executive Di or
ES/dw
cc: John Dunn, City of San Luis Obispo
Toby Ross, City of San Luis Obispo
Dave Ion, County of San Luis Obispo
a
County of San Luis Obispo
CouN Y GovERHMENT CENm • SAN Luis Owwo.CwFomu 93408 • (805)549-5011
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TIM NESS, ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE
FROM: DAVE ION COUNTY ADMWIMMATOR
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1988
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON HOMELESS PROGRAMS - EPISODE 4
Provided below is a brief summary of recent developments in our various
homeless shelter programming efforts:
People's Shelter: Two weeks ago, I attended their board meeting and
presented an analysis of their costs and client statistics, highlighting
the exceedingly high cost per client per night, now, before adding the
52400/mo. lease payments for the house on Johnson Avenue. I also updated
them on the proposed plan for improving the Kansas Avenue facility. As
stated in the staff report for that plan, the shelter facility could be a
consolidation of both programs, however the size of the site precludes
complete separation of the two populations. The People's Shelter board
has met several times on these issues during the past two weeks. I have
spoken to one board member, who stated that it is their desire to operate
a separate program, and to pursue the permit and lease for the house on
Johnson Avenue. It is not known at this time what participation they will
request of the city and county. The City Council will hear the appeal on
Johnson Avenue permit tomorrow night.
Kansas Avenue Site Improvements: Your Board approved, in concept, the
proposed plan and funding for improving the temporary site on Kansas
Avenue. The San Luis Obispo City Council will consider it tomorrow
night. An RFP for lease purchase financing of the project will be
distributed tomorrow. We are still pursuing acquisition of either new or
used modular, moveable units. As of this writing, we are planning to
bring the final development plan and funding request back to your Board on
November 8.
Interim Operation of Kansas Avenue Shelter: As you know, the Salvation
Army is, today, terminating its operation of the overnight shelter
facility, but will continue case management with its clients during the
day. The Economic Opportunity Commission's board voted to take over the
program, but only after a more suitable facility is provided. The current
shelter staff wants to continue working in the program. The Commission's
board will meet today to discuss an EOC staff recommendation to
temporarily operate the shelter program in the present facility. That
recommendation includes the condition that the city and county agree to
fund only one shelter program as of January 1, 1989, and is effective for
only thirty days while the facility improvements are completed. A copy of
a letter detailing the staff recommendation is attached for your
' r i
information. As a contingency, county staff members are preparing a
resolution to provide payment and support to the shelter staff until a
agreement for operation can be developed and approved. The Coalition will
discuss recent developments at its meeting this afternoon, hopefully
producing a recommendation for interim operation of the Kansas Avenue
facility. If necessary, a corrigenda item will be presented at your
meeting tomorrow.
Lona-Term Site Development: Kurt Kupper has a house on 3/4 of an acre
located on Orcutt Road near Broad Street in San Luis Obispo. He is
interested in offering it for lease to a long-term shelter program. He
has discussed the proposal with three members of the City Council , and
states that it was favorably received. Once we see a site plan, we will
know if it can accommodate the modular units. Given the time required to
obtain a use permit, (i .e. planning commission hearings, appeals, city
council , possible injunctions, etc.), it will still be necessary to
improve the Kansas Avenue site in the interim. But the relocatable
modular units can be easily moved to a long-term site whenever one is
secured.
As always, please contact me if you have any questions, directions, or
need any additional information.
Attachment
/-S3