HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/1992, 3 - U 1423: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S (PC'S) ACTION ALLOWING CONTINUATION OF HOMELESS SHELTER USE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORCUTT ROAD, NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BROAD AND ORCUTT.MEEMG DATE:
1111111111$$111 City of Sd11 LUIS OBISPO i- ai- 9
mommaA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT " NUMBBa:
sGin
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director / �:0
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner 1_%
SUBJECT: U 1423: Appeal of Planning Commission's (PC's) action
allowing continuation of homeless shelter- use, on the
north side of Orcutt Road, near the intersection of Broad
and Orcutt.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the
Planning Commission's action to allow continuation of the
homeless shelter use.
2. Discuss letter from Planning Commission on neighborhood
concerns. Direct the Economic Opportunity Commission, Human
Relations Commission, and their staff to concentrate on
finding solutions to. as many neighborhood compatibility issues
as possible.
Report -in -Brief
In conformance with a condition of approval for the use permit for
the City- County Homeless Shelter, on Orcutt Road, the permit was
reviewed by the Planning Commission for the second time on December
11, 1991. The Commission voted to allow continuation of the use,
with another required review in six months. In the meantime, the
Commission directed staff to send a letter to the Council,
outlining neighbor concerns and requesting that the Council review
its policy on sheltering the homeless, concentrating on the
following recommendations: 1) Consider establishing additional
shelters elsewhere in town, separating special -needs groups, such
as women and children; 2) Consider establishing a central
screening area, with transportation to shelters of only those
persons who will spend the night; and 3) Refer complaints about
inadequate emergency response to Police and Fire Chiefs for action.
Neighbors of the shelter filed appeals of the Planning Commission's
action, objecting to the continuation of the shelter use at its
present site. At the meeting, neighbors expressed concern about
the increase in property damage, public urination, trespassing, and
other violations, and said they felt the shelter's presence in the
neighborhood has downgraded the area economically and physically,
and that many citizens in the area fear for their personal safety.
Neighbors also expressed concern that emergency personnel treat
calls from this neighborhood with less concern than those from
others. The neighbors want the use permit revoked and the shelter
moved to government land outside the city limits.
The City Council's position on the homeless shelter has
consistently been that such a shelter must be within the city
limits to be most effective. A lengthy search led to the
determination that the present site was suitable and the best
°��� ►�Hi�►IIIIIIIIp: °IIUIN city of San L OBISPO
REPORT
Page 2
available for the purpose. Many of the problems cited by neighbors
are difficult to resolve and would be present at any shelter
location. However, the Planning Commission felt that there may be
ways to minimize the impacts of the shelter on the neighborhood:
by dealing with the overflow problem by creating additional
shelters and a central screening area; by installing public
toilets where they are appropriate; by serving meals elsewhere to
those not spending the night; by increased vigilance by emergency
personnel; and perhaps by other means. The Commission felt the
shelter is well- managed but with Council assistance could be more
effective in dealing with compatibility issues.
DISCUSSION
Background
Situation
The Planning Commission approved a homeless shelter on the site on
December 14, 1988. On appeal (by a neighboring business) , the
council approved the shelter on January 17, 1989. Various delays
in funding acquisition, recruiting volunteers, and obtaining
materials resulted in the shelter opening on August 22, 1990.
One condition of use permit approval is a requirement for Planning
Commission review after six months. ' The shelter operation was
reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 27, 1991 and again on
December 11, 1991. The Commission approved continuation of' the
use, with a requirement for six -month review, both times. Several
neighboring property or business owners have appeared and objected
to the use at each hearing, and appealed the December 11 approval.
Data summa
Address: 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
Applicant: Economic Opportunity Commission
Representatives: Richard Beck - Meyer, Gwen Guyre
Property owner: Kurt Kupper
Zoning: C -S
General plan: Service commercial /light industrial
Environmental status: Negative declaration of environmental
impact granted by the Director November
30, 1988, affirmed by the Council January
7, 1989.
Site descriution
The 2/3 -acre site is located near the intersection of Orcutt Road
with Broad Street, next to a gasoline service station on the west
and a commercial building with several tenants on the east. A
creek runs through the property, near the easterly property line.
3;
City of San L.41$ OBISp0
REPORT
Page 3
Extensive riparian vegetation grows near or in the creek. A stand
of tall eucalyptus trees lines much of the westerly property line.
The shelter consists of four connected modular buildings, used for
sleeping and eating, and an older residence, used for intake and
counseling and other services.
The site is in a service - commercial zone that contains many older
industrial and service commercial uses, along with new multi -
tenant complexes and some residences. The opposite side of the
street is undeveloped, except for a small, older house to the east.
Railroad tracks cross Orcutt Road about 1100 feet easterly from the
site.
EVALUATION
1. The appellants want the shelter moved. The neighboring
businesses and property owners who appealed the Planning
Commission's action oppose the shelter in this location.
Those who were at the Planning Commission hearing voiced their
concerns with property damage, loitering, trespassing,
panhandling, and personal .Safety, which they attributed to
homeless persons either staying in the area during the day,
or who are not accepted into the shelter at night.
The appellants feel that a homeless shelter, by its very
nature, cannot be managed in any neighborhood without causing
problems. The appellants expressed their frustration with the
lack of control shelter operators have over homeless persons,
and the response from emergency personnel (Police and Fire)
to calls from this neighborhood. They also feel the shelter
in its current location is inadequate to serve the number of
persons seeking help, and the overflow persons tend to be
those most likely to create property damage or act violently.
Because of these concerns, the appellants want the shelter
relocated to government land outside the city limits, away
from any neighborhood.
2. Why this site? After determining the need for a shelter, the
City, County, Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC), various
churches, and Housing Authority spent two years searching for
an appropriate site. The County allowed shelter modules to
be placed, temporarily, on County land next to the Sheriff's
Office on Highway 1, until a permanent shelter site could be
located. The County made it clear that they were not in the
position to provide the site on a long -term basis. Homeless
persons were bused each evening from City Hall to the shelter.
In the mornings, buses returned the shelter clients to City
Hall. This location had the advantage of not being near any
city residential neighborhoods. However, there were problems
with this location:
3'
����m ►�H��Illlllplpu�I '' city of San tL_s OBISp0
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
* Transportation was expensive.
* Clients gathered around City Hall every afternoon,
so as not to miss the bus, creating an uncomfortable
environment for many citizens and employees.
* There were limited opportunities for providing food,
bathing, and clothing at this temporary site.
* Coordination of services with other providers
(Salvation Army, Alcoholics Anonymous, County Mental
Health, Employment Development Department, and others)
was difficult for shelter operators, because there was
no common area for meetings during the day, and it was
difficult to coordinate appointments for shelter clients
when those clients were on the street. The need to
travel by bus to and from the shelter also interfered
with the hours employed homeless persons could work.
* The County Sheriff's Department was opposed to
having the shelter near his operations.
Concurrently with the City- County shelter at Kansas Avenue,
and prior to the establishment of the Orcutt Road shelter, the
People's Shelter (an independent, privately- operated volunteer
group) provided shelter, food, and clothing to a select group:
homeless persons who were working or otherwise were determined
to be on the road to recovery. This shelter moved monthly,
from church to church. Since sheltering the poor has
traditionally been a part of the normal services a church
provides, the City determined that no permits were required
for this activity.
After an extensive search, the present site was determined to
be the best available for the purpose. As noted in the
attached Planning Commission report, the shelter is'now able
to provide a wide range of services, including offering
classes in necessary "living skills" and job search
techniques. Shelter operators work with other agencies to
find assistance and permanent or transitional homes for
clients. The present site has several advantages: it is
close to public transportation, within an industrial rather
than residential area, is close to needed services and jobs,
and is easily visited by service providers.
3. What's being done about the overflow? Shelter personnel and
neighbors alike are concerned about the capacity of the
shelter not meeting the present demand. On a long -term basis,
shelter operators hope to obtain, with help from other
agencies, permanent housing (separate from the shelter) for
city of San L.Ais OBISPO
REPORT
Page 5
local long -term clients, thereby lowering the number needing
shelter each night. In the meantime, the EOC has secured
emergency overflow space at one or more churches in San Luis
Obispo. Women and children will be accepted at the churches,
so several beds at the shelter will be available to persons
previously unable to get in. This arrangement is primarily
for the cold winter season, however. At this time, the number
of homeless persons is expected to continue to rise faster
than the general population. Therefore, the capacity of the
shelter will continue to be a problem for the forseeable
future.
4. Control over homeless persons. The
Commission voiced concerns with the
operators and emergency personnel
homeless persons who do not spend t
or those who do spend the night but
during the day.
appellants and Planning
lack of control shelter
seem to have over. the
he night at the shelter,
are in the neighborhood
Both the shelter operators and the emergency personnel respond
to complaints within their power. However, they report that
there are often reasons th ®se responses are less than may be
desired by the community. The following paragraphs discuss
these complaints.
The shelter operators require clients to sign agreements that
they will observe some basic rules of good conduct both inside
and outside the shelter. These agreements only apply to those
actually receiving shelter services, of course. When
incidents occur, such as trespassing or fire - setting, and
neighbors call the shelter to complain, unfortunately there
is often not enough information to determine who caused the
incident. Without names or adequate descriptions, the shelter
operators are unable to act.
Some activities homeless persons engage in, which are
objectionable to neighbors, are not illegal: parking cars on
the street, walking up Broad Street, engaging in conversations
on the sidewalk, or staying at the shelter site during the
day for appointments. These are all "appearance" issues.
Neighbors perceive that the appearance of homeless persons in
the neighborhood downgrades the economic value of the area,
making it difficult for them to rent to tenants or to attract
customers to their businesses.
To deal with this common perception, some Commissioners
suggested providing an area out of view from the street, where
homeless persons may congregate prior to 5:30 p.m. (when
intake procedures begin). There does not appear to be room
at the site for such an area.
city Of san L. ..S OBISpO
REPORT
Page 6
Other activities may be illegal, but are either unenforceable
or difficult to enforce. For example, a recent court case has
led to a ruling that panhandling is a form of free speech.
Based on this determination, City Police Officers are unable
to enforce laws prohibiting panhandling. Trespassing is also
illegal, but by state law, Officers are able to enforce this
law only 1) if the property is posted with "no trespassing"
signs, or 2) after the property owner or tenant has asked the
trespassers to leave. Property owners report that they have
posted signs, but the signs have been removed shortly after.
Apparently, some property owners or tenants are reluctant to
confront persons on their property. Therefore, when a person
calls the Police to report trespassing, the PD asks whether
the property is posted or if the complainant has asked the
trespassers to leave. Although the Police will respond to any
complaint, if the answer is no to both these questions, the
Police may not be able to take action on a trespassing
violation.
A common complaint from neighboring businesses is public
urination, which is-a violation of the Municipal Code. The
Planning Commission suggested (see PC letter, attached) that
the Council look at providing portable toilets in areas where
they would be convenient for homeless persons, yet not become
attractions in themselves. This idea has merit, but needs
further research, to assure appropriate locations and
supervision.
In general, crimes committed by homeless persons are against
property (vandalism, trespassing, public urination) more than
against persons. Many are similar to traffic violations, in
that officers must see the crime committed before they can
act. Those crimes that are of a violent nature are typically
one homeless person attacking another. The Police Department
response is discussed in the attached letter from the Police
Department. The PD notes that response times to the vicinity
of the shelter have been good. However, as with.calls from
any area of the city, the police must prioritize calls when
staffing is not sufficient. In these cases, response to non-
life- threatening situations may not always be immediate.
The Planning Commission, in its action allowing the use permit
to continue, supported the present location. However, the
Commission also expressed concern for the shelter's impact on
its neighbors, and has asked the Council to do everything in
its power to alleviate neighbors' concerns. (See PC letter,
attached.)
city of San Dais OBISp0
REPORT
Page 7
CONCLUSION
The homeless population is not expected to diminish in the near
future. In 1988, the average number of persons sheltered (either
at the Kansas Avenue site or in the People's Shelter) each night
was 32. The shelter on Orcutt Road reaches its capacity of 54
every night now, and in emergencies has housed up to 60.
If the present shelter is discontinued, and no replacement found,
the homeless persons now being sheltered will remain on the
streets. Problems in neighborhoods, related to homeless persons,
are not expected to diminish, although it is likely that the
homeless would not congregate in the Orcutt Road area to the same
extent as they now do.
If the Council dismantles the present shelter with the intent of
finding another site, it is likely to take a long time to find such
a place. Any site on vacant land outside the city limits will have
many of the same problems as the Kansas Avenue site had. Increased
funding may alleviate some of those problems, but would not have
an effect on access to social _services or jobs. Any location
within the city would have the same problems as the present shelter
has, except that a larger site may be able to accommodate more
people, thereby minimizing the overflow situation.
Some of the neighborhood concerns with the present shelter are
valid, and should be addressed to the full extent possible. The
shelter operators and HRC must continue their efforts to minimize
impacts on the neighborhood. To address neighborhood problems, the
EOC is:
* working with shelter clients to obtain their cooperation
in developing and following good- neighbor guidelines
* attempting to address the overflow population, at least
on a short -term basis
* continuing to hold quarterly neighborhood meetings
* coordinating closely with the Police Department
* working with the HRC, which oversees shelter operations,
by meeting with the HRC quarterly. The HRC has also
convened a homeless shelter subcommittee to assist the
shelter operators with neighborhood relations.
While shelter operators must continue to address the compatibility
problems, the Council is faced with the reality that some problems
are not solvable. The shelter operators and law enforcement have
limits in their capacity to respond to certain complaints.
���M�i�N►�IIIIIII�p� �IlBlll city of San t, OBISPO
REPORT
Page 8
The EOC feels strongly that a shelter is needed, and City and
County contributions indicate a high level of support from the
Council and Supervisors as well. Efforts should be focused on
assisting the EOC in minimizing conflicts within the present
neighborhood, rather than on moving to a new location.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve the appeal, thereby denying continuation
of the homeless shelter use at the site. If approved, the Council
should also allow adequate time for the operators to phase out the
use or to set up a shelter elsewhere. Staff suggests a 6 -month
extension, as recommended by Planning Commissioners who supported
discontinuation of the use at the site.
The Council may continue action on the appeal, if more information
is needed. Direction should be given to staff or the applicants.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Police Department comments are attached. Other departments have
no opinion on this request.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Denial of the appeal would allow continuation of the use at the
site. The City would continue to pay $120,000 per year for a
portion of the program expenses. The approved State grant would be
used to complete purchase of the modular units, and purchase the
site.
An approval of the appeal would be a denial of the use at the site.
The City would save the $120,000 per year it pays as its portion
of program expenses. The State grant would have to be returned,
as it is not transferable to another site. Other costs the City
has paid for the shelter operation have been negligible, in
comparison.
Attached: PC report for December
Draft resolutions
Letters of appeal
11, 1991 (including attachments)
PC resolution of approval
PC draft December 11, 1991 minutes
PC letter to CC
Letter from Police Department (Bart Topham)
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
APPROVING CONTINUATION OF HOMELESS SHELTER USE
AT 736 AND 750 ORCUTT ROAD,
AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THAT ACTION (U1423)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, The applicant's request, The
appellants' letters, the Planning Commission's action, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site
or in the vicinity.
2. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location
and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets
zoning ordinance requirements.
4. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed use will not have a significant effect on. the
environment and has granted a negative declaration of
environmental impact.
5. The nearby R -1 and R -2 neighborhoods are adequately
buffered from possible impacts of the shelter.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approval of the Use Permit
U1423 for a homeless shelter is subject to the following
conditions:
Management:
1. The operator of the shelter shall be the Economic
Opportunity Commission, unless otherwise approved by the
City Council and the Board of Supervisors.
2. The applicants or operators shall submit a management
program to the Community Development Director for approval,
prior to occupancy. The plan must include at least the
following items:
* The name(s) of the organization(s) operating the
shelter
3 9
-
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
U1423: 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
Page 2
* The anticipated number of persons who will live on
site.
* A program description, including provision of
qualified supervisors at the rate of one for the
site, plus one for each ten persons beyond twenty,
as well as all daytime activities and services,
including type of activity or service, service
provider, and estimated number of clients.
* Site plan showing the proposed locations of the
modular buildings precisely.
* The uses of all buildings on site.
* Arrangements for transportation of residents to and
from the site, and monitoring of access to the site
and surrounding areas during daytime hours.
Failure to comply with the approved plan may be grounds for
revocation of this permit.
Parking and occupancy:
3. Parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of two, plus one
per six occupants.
4. The maximum occupancy of the site is 72 persons.
(Occupancy beyond 54 will be allowed only if additional
parking spaces are provided that meet the requirement in
condition 3.)
Fire protection:
5. A fire hydrant and an automatic fire -alarm system shall be
installed, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
Additional fire protection methods may be required by the
Fire Department, depending on the final locations of the
modular buildings and the adequacy of the buildings for the
use.
Architectural and building division review:
6. Improvements to the site, including installation of the
modular buildings, is subject to approval by the
Architectural Review Commission.
7. Installation of the modular buildings must meet all
building code requirements, including handicap
accessibility.
.3'10
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
U1423: 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
Page 3
Creek protection:
8. A setback along the creek averaging 20 feet from the top
of bank, and in no case less than 10 feet from the top of
bank, shall be maintained along the creek to restore and
protect riparian habitat. The precise location of the
setback line shall be approved by the Community Development
Director prior to the placement of any new structures on
the site.
9. A temporary fence must be installed between the buildings
and the top of bank, to protect the wildlife habitat, if
buildings are placed less than 20' from the top of bank.
Such fence design, landscaping, and location is to be
submitted to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
10. The property owner must provide an access and maintenance
easement over the creek area, to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
il. A riparian restoration plan to enhance the creek habitat,
including planting native vegetation, shall be submitted
to the Community Development Director for approval. Plants
and any other features shall be installed pursuant to the
approved plan within one year of the approval of this
permit. If the facility closes within one year, the
revegetation plan must be installed to the approval of the
Community Development Department at the time of closing.
Tree Removals:
12. All trees at the rear of the site shall be staked and
numbered, and listed by species and size, to the approval
of the city arborist. No trees shall be removed except
those approved by the Architectural Review commission, and
each tree removed that is over 10" in diameter shall be
replaced with two trees. The type, size, and location of
replacement trees shall be determined by the city arborist.
All trees to be retained shall be safety - pruned' and
protected from damage during installation of the modular
buildings. The protection method must be approved by the
city arborist.
Water:
13. 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.
J-//
Resolution No.
U1423: 736 and
Page 4'
(1992 Series)
750 Orcutt Road
Review of use permit:
14. The use permit shall be reviewed in six months. At any
time the Planning Commission may review the use permit if
written complaints from citizens or the Police Department
are received by the Community Development Department. The
Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions
of approval or may revoke the use permit.
Trail easement:
15. The applicant shall record an offer of an easement for
public access within the creek setback area to the approval
of the Community Development Director and CIty Attorney.
The city should not accept said offer until the Parks and
Open Space Element is updated and only if in that element
this site is deemed an appropriate location for said
access.
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
1992.
Mayor, Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
J. l�
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
U1423: 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
Page 5
APPROVED:
C
Community Develbpmont Director
J� /s
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY DENYING USE OF PROPERTY AT 736 AND 750 ORCUTT ROAD
FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER (U 1423)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request, the
appellants' statements, the Planning Commission's action, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The extension of the approved use permit will have adverse
impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of adjacent
neighbors.
SECTION 2. The appeal is hereby approved and the use
permit no. U1423 is hereby denied, with the following provision:
1. The shelter use may continue at 736 and 750 Orcutt Road for
a period of six months, to allow shelter operators to find
alternative shelter, if available, and to phase out all
services at the site.
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 , 1992.
J ��
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
U1423: 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
city clerk
APPROVED:
J-1145
MEETING DATE:
IIIMII1bIi�111���� u'll =��� CI tY O San? �S OBIS P O ITEiMa�- U NUMBER:
PLANNING 9R:
PLANNING 6OMMISSION STAFF AVORT i
BY:
Judith Lautner y sociate Planner
SUBJECT:
FILE #
U 1423
Review of approved use permit allowing a homeless shelter on the
north side of Orcutt Road, near the intersection of Broad and
Orcutt.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Approve continuation of the use.
BACKGROUND
situation
The Planning Commission approved a homeless shelter on the site on
December 14, 1988. On appeal (by a neighboring business), the
council approved the shelter on January 17, 1989. Various delays
in funding acquisition, volunteers, and materials resulted in the
shelter opening on August 22, 1990.
One condition of use permit approval is a requirement for Planning
Commission review in six months. The shelter operation . was
reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 27, 1991. The
Commission approved continuation of the use, with retention of the
requirement for six -month review. This is the second six -month
review.
Data summary
Address: 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
Applicant: Economic opportunity Commission
Representative: Richard Beck - Meyer, Gwen Guyre
Property owner: Kurt Kupper
Zoning: C -S
General plan: Service
Environmental status:
Site description
commercial /light industrial
Negative declaration of environmental
impact granted by the director November
30, 1988, affirmed by the council January
17, 1989.
The 2/3 -acre site is located near the intersection of Orcutt Road
with Broad Street, next to a gasoline service station on the west
and a commercial building with several tenants on the east. A
creek runs through the property, near the easterly property line.
Extensive riparian vegetation grows near or in the creek. A stand
of tall eucalyptus trees lines much of the westerly property line.
The shelter consists of four connected modular buildings, used for
sleeping and eating, and an older residence, used for intake and
counseling and other services.
3 -/4
U 1423: 750 OrCUtt Road
Page 2
The site is in a service - commercial
industrial and service commercial
tenant complexes and some residence
street is undeveloped, except for a
tracks cross Orcutt Road about 1100
EVALUATION
zone that contains many older
uses, along with new multi -
as. The opposite side of the
small, older house. Railroad
feet easterly from the site.
1. Shelter improvements are nearing completion. The major work
on the shelter is complete. What remains to be done is 1)
installing signage (if necessary), 2) installing landscaping
(the council requires all city - required landscaping to be
delayed. until after the drought), 3) improving the mailbox,
and 4) completing painting of exterior of buildings. This
work has been guaranteed by a certificate of deposit in the
city's name, to be released when all the above work is
accepted by the city.
2. Conditions have been met. The conditions set limits on
numbers of persons allowed to sleep at the shelter, require
a minimum number of parking spaces, and require shelter
operators to submit a management plan. At this time,
typically 54 persons use the shelter each night, in accordance
with the conditions. Parking is provided in conformance with
the regulations. (The parking lot appears to fill up or
nearly fill up each night, and usually two or three vehicles
are also parked on the street nearby.) A management program
has been submitted previously. Any changes to this program
are required to be submitted in to the Director. Other
conditions relate to the development of the site, and have
been met.
3. The shelter provides many services. Aside from providing food
and beds, the shelter's operation includes support group
(typically 12 -step programs) meetings, regular visits from
acupuncturists, nurses, the Salvation Army, budgeting and
income tax consultants, and other related services. The small
house on site is normally used for these events, in addition
to its use as intake office.
4. A neighbor relations plan has now been created. Since the
shelter opened, Community Development has received no
complaints, about its operation, except immediately prior to
review hearings. However, the police department (PD) has
responded to various calls to the shelter and nearby. The
calls have been for petty theft (typically within the
shelter), drunk and disorderly behavior, vandalism, sleeping
or urinating in doorways, and similar activities. Calls from
businesses on Broad and Orcutt have increased since the
shelter opened. Out of concern for these businesses, the
Planning Commission, at the previous hearing, required the
shelter operators to develop a neighborhood relations program,
1-11
U 1423: 750 Orcutt Road
Page 3
and to consider other locations for the-shelter.
The EOC has developed a neighborhood-relations plan, which is
attached to this report. The plan includes quarterly
neighborhood meetings, regular meetings with the Police
Department (PD), "contracts" with shelter clients, and
assistance in enforcement of no- trespass postings. Because
of concerns with the limited space available at the shelter,
the EOC also is working to locate clients elsewhere where
possible.
The PD supports the EOC's programs that provide counseling, .
referrals, and other services, and assist shelter clients in
finding permanent homes and employment when possible.
5. The city is committed to this location. The Planning
Commission asked the EOC to investigate other locations for
the shelter. The City and County have investigated other
locations over a period of several years, and the City Council
ultimately requested a grant from the state to purchase the
site for the purpose of providing a homeless shelter. The
grant was approved. (Negotiations to buy the site are
continuing, and the purchase is expected to be complete by
January or February 1992.)
Therefore the determination that this is the best available
site has already been made. The Council's determination was
based on an understanding that there is no place within the
city where a shelter would not be cause for concern for some
neighbors. It is possible that an additional shelter will be
developed elsewhere, to accommodate certain segments of the
homeless population (such as women and children) who need to
be separated from the rest. An additional shelter would
relieve some of the pressure from this location. The EOC also
is involved in efforts to find permanent residences and
transitional housing for those persons who are capable of
moving into those environments.
6. Shelter operators are unable to influence homeless persons who
choose not to participate in the shelter program. A little
over a third of the estimated homeless population attempt to
use the shelter. The remaining numbers (about 80) choose not
to enter any shelter, for various personal reasons. While the
regular shelter clients are made aware of the need to maintain
good neighbor relations, members of this less social group
often find it advantageous to function outside the shelter
program. The EOC has no responsibility for or control over
those who would not choose to use their services.
The shelter clients sign statements indicating their
understanding of their responsibilities to be good neighbors.
In spite of these "contracts ", some clients do continue to
cause problems for neighboring businesses. The shelter
j3 /8
U 1423: 750 Orcutt Road
Page 4
management has dealt with several incidents, but can only act
if they are informed of problems. It is therefore imperative
that neighbors who are experiencing problems with homeless
clientele inform the shelter management (and the PD if
appropriate) as soon as possible, and work with them to
mitigate concerns.
7. Shelter operators do not object to regular review. Since the
location is set for the forseeable future, the operation of
the shelter is of primary concern to the Planning Commission.
Two meetings have already been scheduled by shelter operators
for neighbors to voice concerns and to work out solutions.
No neighbors attended the first meeting, and only a few
persons attended the second. The EOC will continue to
schedule neighborhood meetings. The EOC shelter manager has
no objection to semi - annual public review hearings before the
Planning Commission, if this type meeting is determined
necessary. In addition to PC review, shelter operators and
the PD both report quarterly to the Human Relations
Commission, which has financial control of the operation.
At this time, staff believes the EOC has proven competent at
managing the shelter, and recommends one -year reviews rather
than six - month, to maintain control over land use issues.
8. Some remodelling is planned. The EOC plans to use part of the
grant money to upgrade the old house on the property, to make
it suitable, from a building code standpoint, for sheltering
clients. The rear shed -like portion of that building is also
planned to be demolished and replaced by a small compatible
addition. These changes will be subject to architectural
review. The operation of the shelter will remain essentially
unchanged, however, so no use permit amendment will be
necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve continuation of the use permit, with a change of the
condition requiring review in six months to a condition requiring
review in one year.
Attached:
• Vicinity map
• Site plan (not exact)
• Resolution of approval
• Program description
• Services center calendar
• Neighborhood relations plan
jv
C-tS
II
160
0
.a;
1 i =�
C -S -S
IN
19
M
c
osr �
00 0
•
o
0
W
z=
w i� ,a•• i`• -•F
tl
.I .I a �.N �•R
OI ••N� i r1:
ORCUTT .. R•
r
'rs�•. ••
UNITY MAP I u14�
4 OY)d 150 dreutt
1 SCALE: 1" = 150
i
1 '
i
M
i
Z
�s
C-s'S
3 -0fo
'7
oc
I T f
rr
Q 2 L .
Wi t x
--------------
In
r
-9i 4 or
an_ NO
7 i
r t-
L
AS A-
lim
LF
Os V
z
tj �7
SW- A-
00 rn
41511 0 CD
c:
0
tv
I 4L
. . - -.2. ! m
0 r c u t t
16.4I
01/
a :j
rT MOM
330
0
16.4I
01/
EOC
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
of San Luis Obispo County, Inc
880 Industrial Way O San Luis Obispo, California 93401 O 805/544 -4355
March 22, 1991
Ms. Judy Lautner, Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department
PO Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403 -8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
In anticipation of the Use Permit Hearing of the Planning
Commission on March 27, 1991, I would like to forward this
information to you regarding the use of the property at
750/736 Orcutt Rd. (EOC Homeless Shelter):
1. The primary use is nightly sheltering of 54 clients. The
shelter opens at 5:30 p.m. each night and clients must
leave the property at 8:00 a.m. each morning unless
they have a scheduled appointment at the Services
Center (operated in the house on the property).
2. The house on the property is used for office space for the
Client Services Manager. It is a site for the delivery of
direct social services by existing community agencies.
Regularly scheduled users are as indicated on the enclosed
Services Center Calendar. These appointments are primarily
made for clients during the morning hours between 8:00 -
and 12:00 p.m. There is occasional nightime use of the
house (Monday night health clinic, Tuesday, Friday and Sunday
night 12 -Step meetings).
3. Staff is on -site 24 hours per day Monday through Friday and
16 hours per day on Saturday and Sunday.
4. Clients are asked to leave the property promptly by 8:00 a.m.
in the morning, and not to come on to the property prior to
5:30 p.m.. While there seems to be a rapid dispersment of
clients in the morning, clients do begin to appear at the
site at around 4:30 in the evening.
If you should need additional information about the movement
of clients and staff on the property, please know that I
will attend the meeting on Wednesday night, or can be
reached by telephone in advance of that meeting.
eretg,,
ervisor
Pr.oviding Community Action Programs to SLO County since 1965
3-�2
N
r
a
C
L-1
m
L]
J
C
D
�
14
N
N
o
0
0
N
L
r L
ri
N L
L
rl
r-4
H
cc
c
+.+' x
C
U W
U L
C
U u
C
U + +
C
`
O G
O w
O 6l
O O1
00
00
a0
00
Y
'-i
ri
00
'-I _
u1
N
O O
vi
-r4
14
< a,
O
M
O 7
n C7
fli
P'1
O
n
S
N
L
L
L
ri
'-I
d
rl
N
rl
W
T
T
T N
L 2
.
+� x
41 x
+J S
T
C
O
O ca
U G
O c0
U C
O Q
U C
+•+
L
U
d
_O
C
CO
co
N
Y+
ON
61 O
rl
%0
cn
O
L
v
d 61
1+
L.
14
L Gl
N
en
Gl
L
L
W
L C cc
L L
U +
L
L ca
0 C
T U
to
L
w
U H
C co
d
G U
L 3+ L
cQ m U
C
0 w
U R L
cc
'7
.• C U
ca
ca L
E +J
cc E ++
m +4 4
c9
m
E •+ C C
rl cp O 7
cc
N
E u
+� r-c
+4
^i
m
7
^+ .i
w c0
7 w 93
V1 Q. 2
7
y
is Gl E C.
S A
7
0
1+ c0
x
.
O
S
C!]
r— S
O
O
O cO'1
O
a
� O<
O
(D O
.. w
u)
u'1
u') n O
Ln
u1
ul
N
O�
.-�
4i
4
N
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
O
O
CD
O
cn
rz
�0.�
EOC
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
of San Luis Obispo County. Inc.
— 880 indurxw Way O San Lum Obispo. California 9:401 O 8051:44 -4355
NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS PLAN
The objective of the EOC Homeless Shelter's Neighborhood Relations Plan
is to operate the shelter facility in such a manner as to be as compatible
as possible with the various other property owners' objectives for their homes
or businesses in the area. An attitude of oneness, receptiveness, and a
willingness to change practices for the betterment of the neighborhood will
be maintained at all times in response to neighborhood concerns. At the same
time, every effort will be made to integrate the shelter facility into
the neighborhood as a contributing component of our community, providing
the opportunity for neighborhood appreciation of diversity and its benefits.
Those objectives will be accomplished through formal and informal methods.
FORMAL METHODS
1. Once per quarter, the shelter program will host a neighborhood meeting,
inviting involved parties to identify problems and possible solutions associated
with having the homeless shelter in the neighborhood.
2. Each neighbor will be provided with the day and niohtirne phone numbers
of the shelter program, and staff will make every effort to respond to issues
and complaints in an immediate way as appropriate.
:3. Shelter management will meet with the San Luis Obispo Police Department on
an ongoing basis to assure an optimal working relationship and 'appropriate
information sharino.
4. Each client will be informed of his /her responsibility to be a good
neighbor upon-intake into the shelter program and will sign a statement of
his /her understanding.
5. Where adjacent properties are posted for no trespass, the shelter staff
will assist in enforcement through warnings and when appropriate, calls to
local law enforcement.
:6. Ongoing efforts will be made to address the problem of insufficient shelter
capacity with other community agencies.
•7. The City of San Luis Obispo, through its Human Relations Commission, will
receive gvarterly reports of incidents related to neighborhood concerns.
'.'INFORHIAt'METHODS
1. Community relations events will be held as is appropriate and possible.
2. Interested neighbors will continue to be welcome to tour or to get
involved in a volunteer capacity in the program.
•3. Shelter staff will continue to condact informal drop -in visits to
local businesses to assess neighborhood climate and identify emerging
pioblems.
T� Providing Community Action Programs to SLO County since 1965-
LI�►1t�d Wsu 9
N TAG E Came% �►'-,
P IZOPERTIE5 MBMW-7. o
To the Members of the Planning Commission of San Luis Obispo
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are the owners of Mcmillan Commercial Park located directly to the east of the
homeless shelter located on Orcutt Road. Since the shelter opened, we have had
the following problems with people who use the facility:
1. Loitering in our parking lot and lawn at all hours of the day and night.
2. Breaking irrigation lines by walking from the shelter to our property.
3. Parking and abandoning vehicles in our parking lot.
4. Performing vehicle maintenance in our parking lot.
5. Urinating in our parking and landscape areas.
6. Camping with open fires in the creek between our property and the shelter.
This type of behavior would certaining not be tolerated in most of the
neighborhoods of our community. However, a certain logic exists that it is allright
if it happens in a commercial or industrial area. All of us in the area have made
significant investments in our property, and we have a right to expect that our
tenants have quiet and safe enjoyment oftheir premises. We urge you to consider
how appropriate this facility is for our area, and hope that if you feel that it should
remain there, that measures are taken to protect the interests of neighboring
owners.
One of the most disappointing aspects of this problem is the response that we
have gotten from the people who run the shelter. When we called to complain
about some of the items above, we were told that the shelter cannot be
repsonsible for anything that happens beyond their property lines. This is like
shooting a gun off in your backyard and not worrying about where the bulletts
land. We felt that we had no choice but to erect a six foot high chain link fence
around our entire property line in order to protect our interests. We did this at a
cost of $3400.00. In addition, when someone broke an irrigation line while
trespassing through our landscaping, we received a water bill from the City for
over use and penalties of $1900.00.
We would remind you that the shelter is located in an area which does not have
the necessary zoning for that use. Further, the shelter apparently does not have
to meet any parking requirements like the rest of us in the area do. We feel that
the shelter and some of the people who use it act as if they are above and beyond
the laws and standards by which the rest of us live. Please enact and enforce
some groundrules for the operation of the shelter which protect our rights.
Sincerely,
U
Vincent Fonte, Robert Lombardi, Alan McVay
VINTAGE PROPERTIES
890 Osos Street, Suite 0 • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • 80515446529
J0
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Tide I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, the undersigned t"Yappealsfrom the decision of ?Z-A -N oi/ n.J
N
rendered on /.,,, — / l — I 1 which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submflttng this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
X 7EN.D G).SE 1015217tI (/ /V2 3
The undersigned discussed the.declslon being appealed with:
on
PM 1 4.1k ru _ '_�i�11 �
REC9ovED
DEC 2 0 1991
CITY CLERK
SAP! LUIS OBISpo. CA
i
Calendared for.
° yam
Appellant:
Narriefrid-9
Repr4sentaWe
Address
4-V Y - 70//
one
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Copy to Administrative Offlcer
Copy to the-following department(s):
•tA M
—0�e
OEC 2 � 19
December 20, 1991
TO: San u s Obispo city Planning Commission
FR(M: William Portzel - 1 of 4 owners and representing CRMSROADS
Shopping Center at 3165 and 3211 Broad Street
SUB.IFIT: Conditional Use Permit # U 1423 - Homeless Shelter
This is an appeal to the San Lori a Obispo Planning Cum assion to reverse its
decision to extend use permit # U 1423 for the Homeless Shelter at 750 Orcutt
Road made on December 11, 1991. A Homeless Shelter at this address is out of
zoning.
3 a7
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 herebyappealsfrom the decision of
rendered on // a&e 19 9/ which decision consisted of the foUow ng (Le. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal Use additional shoots as needed):
The undersigned discussed the. decision being appealed with: '
on
1VPE;
DEC 2 0 1991
CITY CLERK
C
Calendared for / 1,2 / Y
, L
Representative �j
/�' ' � GGVL
Tess
S'p/ - &X lop
One
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy to the-follaMng department(s):
30&
McMillan
December 20, 1991
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Approval of Conditional Use Permit
Homeless Shelter
Orcutt Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Gentlemen:
As owner of the property located at 2925 McMillan Ave., a
neighboring property to the current operating location of the
Homeless Shelter, I am writing to appeal the recent decision by the
Planning Commission to renew the conditional use permit granted to
EOC to operate the Homeless Shelter at its current location.
Sin rely
Jack S. Foster
2995 McMillan Avenue, Suite 196, San Luis Obispo, CA- 93401
805/541 -1858 FAX: 541 -5724
0,29
Treff's Chevron Service
3180 So. Broad St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tplpnknna PAI.5AA.611
U—C 5'11125as&l/m ❑ FYI
5—E I V E iL*'
�coundi IQI D DRL
CAO ❑ FIN. DIPL
DEC 2 0 1991 �KEl ACAO Cl FIRECHIEF
ATMRNEY Q FW DIR.
CITY CLERK ieCLERK/ORIC. ❑ FOLICE O-L
Du CL III G-V � OVIPO CA ❑ MGW. TEAM ❑ REC DIX
❑ r— READ FILE ❑ VnLDR
40
"Z
vt
67
A/Ij
zoeo cl�;�
EX 41V
Or L
CA Cq,-LC,/Z
I
Tr9ft's Clevron Service or..
L; Cu Si., Su,lq Luis O'Clispol CA 162
31SO So.
r
,05 r
Tc.lepj-.o��,e U _044-0-3111 %0
C4,
vza
ge7
-T L
L L
DEC 2 J 1991
Mor
i214� C�-X-e - -
c245� 1991
❑ • Dowto Actkm ❑ FYI
❑ Camcil VCDD DUL
'�CAO ❑ FIN. DIP.
Q.ACAO ❑
FIRE CHIEF
VL TIORNEY ❑
FW DIR
V C>. : ORIC. ❑
POLICE (3-L
❑ MCMT. TEAM ❑
REC. DIR
❑❑ C READ FILE
UTIL DIR.
C3
1,1�i/ %' � G•C•L L� .t� ; ti : ��f'�ll'rLl -GCe�� Q -ii �"� ./.. ..�
�V l i" "
CC CZ;t a,
,Y-sk
TO:
FROM:
RE:
20 December 1991
San Luis Obispo City Council
Doris Dixon Ahrens - Property owner 810 & 830 Orcutt Road
Appeal - Use Permit U 1423
To whom it may concern:
I take this means to appeal the recommendation of the City Planning
Commission within the 10 day grace period required for same
regarding their vote on the 'review of conditionally approve permit
allowing a homeless shelter, 750 Orcutt Road, C -S zone "at their
December 11, 1991 regular meeting.
Signed:
Doris Dixon Ahrens
4796 Righetti Road
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
COPEEST0:
❑ • Dewtes Arlon
CAO
❑ FYI
IemD DGL
❑ FIN. DUL
CAO
❑
FIREaiw
�❑
El
FW DUL
*ATIORNEY
CLERK /ORIC.
❑
POUaCK
❑ MCMT.TEAM
❑
RECDIR
❑ C READ FILE
❑
UIIL DILL
dEC I V E
DEC2 X1991
ijiry vLtHK
SAr; LUIS 08ISP0. CA
3-33
December 20, 1991
Auto Part Recyclers of SLO, Inc.
3045 Duncan Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543 -1215
Charles M. Roeder property owner
San Luis Obispo City Council
RE: Appeal Use Permit U1423
To whom it may concern:
This letter is to appeal the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission regarding their vote on the review of
conditional approved permit on the Homeless Shelter at
750 Orcut Road, San Luis Obispo CZ Zone at their regular
meeting on December 11, 1991.
We would like to file this appffal with the City Council to
be in their hands before the next regular meeting on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Roeder
Property Owner
DEC ?
-LTY CLGn: <:
nB;;;PC. C
COPS TO:
❑ - Dawtes Action f
❑ FYI
❑ camdl
XJ
CDD DR
Q CAO
❑
FIN. DIR.
CAO
❑
FIRE CHIEF
4 kATrcRNEY
❑
FW DM
GrcLERK /omc.
❑
roucE CSI.
❑ MCMT. TEAM
❑
PWC DQt I
❑ C READ FILE
❑
U TLD;IL
❑
❑
3 -3�1
PRIC11PION
machine company
3055 McMillan Road
San Luis Obispo
California 93401
TO: Planning Commission
December 20, 1991
RE: Commission Meeting U -142 3 (Homeless Shelter Use Permit Extension)
I am writing this letter to appeal the decision made on Wednesday the 11th
of December. I do not wish to see the homeless shelter get an extension of
their temporary use permit.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Pat Tiffin
President
Precision Machine
DeC ? +} 1991
COII;TO:
❑ • Dames Action
FYI
❑
M CAO ❑
CDD DR
FN. DIR.
❑ cAO ❑
FIRE CHIEF
'*A T1�DRNE ❑
FW DR
a E[tIC /ORIG. ❑
PouCE CH.
❑ MCMT.TEAM ❑
RECDIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑
UTIL DIR.
STANLEY E. BELL
December 23, 1991
Members, San Luis Obispo City
Council
City of San Luis .Obispo
900 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear CounciLmembers:
RE: PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE C.U.P. FOR THE HOMELESS SHELTER,
ORCUTT NEAR BROAD
Please accept this Letter as an appeal of the Planning Commission decision
approving the extension of the C.U.P. for the Homeless Shelter.
Please advise me of the City Council hearing date on this matter. Thank
you.
Yours truly,
Sta y E. Bell
COPISTO:
❑ • DawW Acdm
❑ FYI
❑ Cama1
19'�DDDGL
`�CAO
❑
FIN. DUL
❑] CAO
❑
FMECHEF
$�f7Tae4EY
El
FW DIR
1d CLERWORIG. ❑
POUCE CK
❑ MCMT. TEAM ❑
REC. DIR
❑ C READ FILE
❑
URL DUL
( 8 0 5 ) 773 -5069 160 SILVER SHOALS
R FC171v';7;?
DEC 2 3 1991
,:t- -
SHELL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 934.49
3 J (�
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5076 -91
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall,
San Luis Obispo, California, on December 11, 1991, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under application No. U1423 by Economic Opportunity Commission, applicant.
USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
To allow a homeless shelter.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
750 Orcutt Road.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Service - Commercial /Light Industrial.
PRESENT ZONING:
C -S.
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 use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons
living or worldng at the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
JI-9%
Resolution No. 5076 -91
Use Permit U 1423
Page 2
4. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed use will
not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative
declaration of environment impact.
5. The nearby R -1 and R -2 neighborhoods are adequately buffered from possible
impacts of the shelter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U1423 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The approved Use Permit No. 1423 is valid subject to all the original conditions
contained in City Council Resolution No. 6569 (1989 Series) (attached).
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Kouralds, seconded by Commr. Williams,
and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Comm s. Kourakis, Williams, Schmidt, Karleskint, and Hoffman
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Gurnee
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: December 11, 1991
3-38
RESOLUTION NO. 6569 (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMNUSSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING
A HOMELESS SHELTER AT 750 ORCUTT ROAD,
AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THAT ACTION (U1423)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. iFindings. That this council, after consideration of the Planning
Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and both written
and oral testimony by citizens, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons
living or working on the site or in the vicinity. -
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed use will not have
a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration of
environmental impact.
5. The nearby R -I and R -2 neighborhoods are adequately buffered from possible impacts of
the shelter.
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the use permit U1423 for a homeless
shelter be subject to the following conditions:
Management:
The operator of the shelter shall be the Economic Opportunity Commission, unless
otherwise approved by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.
2. The applicants or operators shall submit a management program to the Community
Development Director for approval, prior to occupancy. The plan must include at
least the following items: .
' The name(s) of the organization(s) operating the shelter.
' The anticipated number of persons who will live on -site.
' A program description, including provision of qualified supervisors at the rate
of one for the site, plus one for each ten persons beyond twenty, as well as all
daytime activities and services, including type of activity or service, service
provider, and estimated number of clients.
3 -0
R6569
Resolution No. 6569 (1989 Series)
Page 2
• Site plan showing the proposed locations of the modular buildings precisely.
• The uses of all buildings on site.
• Arrangements for transportation of residents to and from the site, and
monitoring of access to the site and surrounding areas during daytime hours.
Failure to comply with the approved plan may be grounds for revocation of this
permit.
Parking and occupancy:
3. Parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of two, plus one per six occupants.
4. The maximum occupancy of the site is 72 persons. (Occupancy beyond 54 will be allowed
only if additional parking spaces are provided that meet the requirement in condition
3.)
Fire protection:
5. A fire hydrant and an automatic fire -alarm system shall be installed, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Additional fire protection methods may be required
by the Fire Department, depending on the final locations of the modular buildings and
the adequacy of the buildings for the use.
Architectural and building division review:
6. Improvements to the site, including installation of the modular buildings, is subject
to approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
7. Installation of the modular buildings must meet all building code requirements,
including handicap accessibility.
Creek protection:
8. A setback along the creek averaging 20 feet from the top of bank, and in no case less
than 10 feet from the top of bank, shall be maintained along the creek to restore and
protect riparian habitat. The precise location of the setback line shall be approved
by the Community Development Director prior to the placement of any new structures on
the site.
9. A temporary fence must be installed between the buildings and the top of bank, to
protect the wildlife habitat, if buildings are placed less than 20' from the top of
bank. Such fence design, landscaping, and location is to be submitted to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
10. The property owner must provide an access and maintenance easement over the creek
area, to the approval of the Public Works Department.
11. A riparian restoration plan to enhance the creek habitat, including planting native
vegetation, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval.
Plants and any other features shall be installed pursuant to the approved plan within
4. 7o
Resolution No. 6569 (1989 Series)
Page 3
one year of the approval of this permit. If the facility closes within one year,, the
revegetation plan must be installed to the approval of the Community Development
Director at the time of closing.
Tree Removals:
12. All trees at the rear of the site shall be staked and numbered, and listed by species
and size, to the approval of the city arborist. No trees shall be removed except
those approved by the Architectural Review Commission, and each tree removed that is
over 10' in diameter shall be replaced with two trees. The type, size, and location
of replacement trees shall be determined by the city arborist. All trees to be
retained shall be safety - pruned and protected from damage during installation of the
modular buildings. The protection method must be approved by the city arborist.
Water:
13. The shelter shall require an allocation an 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.
Review of use permit:
14. The use permit shall be reviewed in 6 months. At any time the Planning Commission
may review the use permit if written complaints from citizens or the Police
Department are received by the Community Development Department. The Planning
Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval or may revoke the use
permit.
Trail easement:
15. The applicant shall record an offer of an easement for public access within the creek
setback area to the approval of the Community Development Director and City
Attorney. The city should not accept said offer until the Parks and Open Space
Element is updated and only if in that element this site is deemed an appropriate
location for said access.
3��
Resolution No. 6569 (1999 Series)
Page 4
On motion of Councilman Settle seconded
by Mayor Dunin and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Mayor Dunin, Rappa and Pinard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this Ltlday of January . 1989
r`Mayor Ron Dunin
0
City Vlerk Pam Voglts
APPROVED: u
City A ministrative Officer
A
Community Development Director
JL4:u 1423res
J40Z
M E M O R A N D U M
30 December 1991
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Commission
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Homeless shelter at 736 and 750 Orcutt Road
At its December 11, 1991 regular meeting, the Planning Commission
reviewed the use permit for the homeless shelter on Orcutt Road,
as required by a condtion of use permit approval. After hearing
public testimony, the Commission approved continuation of the use
for another six months, with a condition that a message be sent to
you, urging additional action to alleviate compatibility issues
between the homeless population and neighbors of the shelter.
The Commission wants you to be aware of the following specific
issues that neighbors have raised:
The problems:. Persons who do not sleep at the shelter seek
other places to stay the night. Neighbors have found that
several homeless persons will camp out near the shelter,
including on their property. Often these persons will leave
trash and shopping carts, vandalize property, build small
fires, sleep in vehicles or trash containers on the site,
urinate in parking lots or on landscaping, break down fences,
and bother employees or residents. During the day, homeless
persons typically gravitate to other parts of town, but some
remain in the area, and many start arriving near the shelter
by four o'clock in the afternoon each day. In addition to the
specific behavior noted above, neighbors reported that they
and potential tenants are offended by the appearance of old
vehicles full of goods, as well as of unattractively - clothed
persons lingering in the area or walking up and down Broad
Street.
In sum, the neighbors feel that the shelter is not compatible
with this neighborhood. They feel they have suffered personal
and financial losses because of the acts and appearance of
some homeless persons, and some neighbors express fear for the
personal safety of employees who work late and leave alone.
City Council from Planning Commission - 12/30/91
Page 2
What causes these problems? The neighbors say that all of the
above problems take place because a homeless shelter is in
this neighborhood. They say problems are exacerbated by poor
response from emergency personnel to trespassing, vandalism,
and fire complaints in this area. Neighbors and Planning
Commissioners feel that if the shelter were larger, nobody
would need to be turned away and therefore there would be
fewer people sleeping on neighboring property and fewer of the
problems associated with trespassing. Neighbors also feel
that if police and fire response were faster and more
effective, there would be fewer repeat violations.
The shelter's current capacity is 54 persons. With some
remodelling, this number may increase to 60. The operators
have established a priority system for allocating beds, so
that the most vulnerable will be protected from the weather
and from personal danger. However, the shelter operators note
that the homeless population is increasing at a higher rate
than the general population, and at this time, each night from
four to fifteen persons are turned away. In addition to the
persons turned away, there are many others who, for personal
reasons, have never sought-a bed at the shelter and those who
have been refused so often they no longer ask. It is likely
that at least 80 homeless persons sleep outside in this city
every night.
Shelter operators and neighbors alike agree that the shelter
does not have the capacity to house all homeless persons
seeking shelter in this community. The shelter does make
meals and showers available to those who cannot stay the
night, before turning them away. Therefore, there is some
incentive for a person to come to the shelter site each night,
even if he does not expect to be given a bed.
What needs to be done? To eliminate the overflow situation,
the Planning Commission requests that the Council look at
alternatives for housing the homeless. The neighbors who
testified at the hearing want the shelter to be moved from
this neighborhood. The Commission (with two dissenting
Commissioners) , however, feels the present location can remain
viable, and recommends that the council:
1. Establish additional shelters expeditiously, to
decentralize the sheltering operation. Since the
proportion of homeless women and children is increasing
faster than the homeless population in general, some
Commissioners supported changing the Orcutt Road shelter
to a shelter exclusively for this group.
3
City Council from Planning Commission - 12/30/91
Page 3
2. Investigate the possibility of establishing a central
screening area, with transportation to the shelters of
only those persons approved to spend the night there.
3. Refer 911 response complaints to the Police and Fire
Chiefs for action. The Commission is especially
concerned about the perception that emergency calls
originating near the shelter are given lower priority
than are similar calls from other areas of the city.
In addition to their motion listing these three specific requests,
Planning Commissioners discussed and suggested that the Council
look at including the following in any plans for the homeless:
1. Development of a work program for clients, that requires
clients to earn the privilege of receiving services.
(Shelter operators note that each client staying
overnight is required to perform one chore. The
Commission suggests that this concept be expanded.)
2. Provision of public toilets (probably portable) in areas
where they may be convenient to homeless persons during
the day, and near areas where unsheltered homeless
persons spend the night. Commissioners felt this action
could alleviate many of the complaints about public
urination and overuse and vandalism of restrooms.
The Commission's concern is underscored by the receipt by the
Planning Division of eight letters from neighbors, appealing
the Commission's approval of continuation of the shelter use.
The appeal of the use permit has been tentatively scheduled
for the January 21, 1992 Council agenda.
JW
IIJJVIII pill II :. �'. �hI IiIII
II
„III A iIIII � city or san Luis oBispo
IR P NI
POLICE DEPARTMENT
a en
=' Post Office Box 1328 — San Luis Obispo, CA 93406.1328 — 805/549.7310
TO: Judy Lautner, Community Development
FROM: Captain Bart Topham
DATE: January 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Homeless shelter permit
As- previously reported, calls- for - service in 1991 were up
significantly over 1990 in the area of the homeless
shelter. There were approximately 17 for 1990 (including
2 medical aids) and aproximately 75 for 1991 (including
11 medical aids). The increased activity appears to be the
result of homeless individuals travelling through both
residential and.business areas enroute to the shelter; as-
well-as the interaction of clientele in and around the
shelter. Our records indicate that the Police department
continues to have good response times to calls- for - services
in the vicinity of the shelter. We continue to be ready
and willing to work with all concerned parties, in
particular to help alleviate concerns of area residents.
However, staffing and workload demands make it unlikely
that we will be able to significantly increase routine
patrols in the areas between downtown.and the shelter, on a
regular basis.
9
3-�
eMUTING AGENC 2 January 1992
DATES ITEM #
TO: City Council
SUBJECT: U1423 Planning Commission action allowing continuation
of homeless shelter at 750 Orcutt Road
FROM: Doris Dixon Ahrens - Property owner 810 -830 Orcutt Road
I went on record and wrote you a letter stating my objections to the
shelter operation when this item came up before the Planning Commission
in December. I wish to add a few more comments regarding the situation;
It makes me sick and angry to continually have our property rights
violated by the whims of our City, the E.O.C. and the homeless, and
other government agencies in the guise of compassion and /or progress.
If the Sheriffs department, one of our law enforcement bodies "opposes
having the shelter near its operation" (as stated in your latest Council
Agenda Report) and the Police Department states they are "ready and
willing to work with all concerned parties" but "workload demands
make it unlikely that we will be able to significantly increase routine
patrols" how are we, as private citizens, to cope with the 'overflow',
those that are turned away from the shelter, those that enter our
private property and camp there ?.
We must post no trespassing signs (which are immediately torn down)
and ASK them to leave before the Police will respond to our call.
There is no valid argument for the shelter NOT being out at the
RECEIVED
Kansas Avenue , facility. $; -/1 51t ..---
JAN 2 1 1992
The argument in the agenda report states that: C�AK
SA S OBIgPO, CA
* The County Sheriffs Department was opposed to.having the
shelter near its operation.
If that is a valid statement, why is Orcutt Road an acceptable
e
( 2 )
location. We, as private property owners oppose it too.
If
* "clients gathering around City Hall every afternoon creates an
uncomfortable environment for citizens and employees"
why is Orcutt Road acceptable or better. We too are 'uncomfortable'.
Are we as property owners and private citizens also second class
citizens?
I maintain that taxpayer funded programs should be placed on public
land and not waste additional money to buy private property that is
inadequate in size and location.
Doris Dixon Ahrens
COPIi5TO:
Ammon
Q FYI
INKLOrEY
CDD DUL
❑ FIN. DIR
❑ Fmai'
ORIG.
FW DUL
❑ POLICECR
❑ MCmT.TMJ
❑ PXC -DM
YT-
DUL
•
COFIM T0:
❑ • Ammon ❑ FYI
Cama1 17'rnD MR. FW DR K/-ACAO FIRE CHIEF �d c�uciof '1c. ❑ POLICEcH P R O P E R T I E S
❑ MGMT.TEAM ❑ P.ECDIK
❑ C READ FILL• ❑ .� L IK
Ladies and Gentlemen,
MEETING AGENDA
City Council of San Luis Obispo January 13, 1992
We are the owners of McMillan Commercial Park located directly to the east of the
homeless shelter located on Orcutt Road. Since the shelter opened, we have had
the following problems with people who use the facility:
1. Loitering in our parking lot and lawn at all hours of the day and night.
2. Breaking irrigation lines by walking from the shelter to our property.
3. Parking and abandoning vehicles in our parking lot, and adjoining streets.
4. Performing vehicle maintenance in our parking lot.
5. Urinating and defecating in our parking lot and landscape areas.
6. Camping with open fires in the creek between our property and the shelter.
This type of behavior would certainly not be tolerated in most of the
neighborhoods of our community. However, a certain logic exists that it is allright
if it happens in a commercial or industrial area. All of us in the area have made
significant investments in our property, and we have a right to expect that our
tenants have quiet and safe enjoyment of their premises. We urge you to consider
how appropriate this facility is for our area, and to take measures to protect the
interests of neighboring owners. We do not feel that the shelter should remain at
its present location.
One of the most disappointing aspects of this problem is the response that we
have received from the people who run the shelter. When we called to complain
about some of the items above, we were told that the shelter cannot be
responsible for anything that happens beyond their property lines. This is like
shooting a gun off in your backyard and not worrying about where the bulletts
land. We felt that we had no choice but to erect a six foot high chain link fence
around our entire property line in order to protect our interests. We did this at a
cost of $3400.00. In addition, when someone broke an irrigation line while
trespassing through our landscaping, we received a water bill from the City for
over use and penalties of $1900.00.
We would remind you that the shelter is located in an area which does not have
the necessary zoning for high density residential use. Further, the shelter
apparently does not have to meet any parking requirements like the rest of us in
the area do. We feel that the shelter and some of the people who use it act as if
they are above and beyond the laws and standards by which the rest of us live.
Please enact and enforce some groundrules for the operation of the shelter which
protect our rights. Please take action for the long term to relocate the shelter to a
more appropriate area.
Sincerely, R E C E I V E D
JAN 1 A 1992
Vincent Fonte, Robert Lombardi, Alan McVay e„ I-LERn
VINTAGE PROPERTIES ^ Jr.s Q61SP0, CA
890 Osos Street, Suite D • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • 8051544.6529
HEALTH AGENCY
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Reply to: 4'�'d
January 21, 1992
Economic Opportunity Commission
of San Luis Obispo County
880 Industrial Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Whom It May Concern:
�-3
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
2180 JOHNSON AVENUE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
(805) 5494700
Fax No. (805) 5461232
This is is in support of the Economic Opportunity Commission
Homeless Shelter which provides a vital service for this com-
munity and the county. While there is concern for all homeless,
our agency is particularly concerned about the mentally ill home-
less and the stress that is caused and the worsening of their con-
dition that occurs without emergency shelter available. With any
program like this, there are bound to be concerns expressed within
the community, but the long -term benefits and humanitarian pur-
poses it serves far outweighs immediate fears.
We would request the Council to continue the use permit as needed
for this necessary program.
Si nceerely,,
IoLt'
Dale R. Wolff, Ph.D.
Director
DRW:JA:mjw
Neighborhood Relations Efforts
Cleanup
Community group cleanups 4 times per year
Weekly janitorial surrounding site
Volunteer clients 2 times per month
Site Securitu
Fenced perimeter
Flood lighting around building
5:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. clients off site
Staff supervision of property perimeter
Vehicles
Towing of abandoned vehicles
Talking with clients re on- street parking
Rules
Anti- trespass policy
Neighborhood relations emphasis
No leaving site after 6.:30 p.m.
Meetings
Quarterly hosted at EOC
Phone numbers mailed to all neighbors
Informal with neighboring business operators
Quarterly HRC meetings
DENNIS B. WHEELER, JR.
843 Via Esteban San Luis Obispo, CA 340
January 1, 19921
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Homeless Shelter, 750 Orcutt Road
The homeless shelter is a very volatile issue, and before
taking action on extending the permit for it, I think you
should do the following:
1) Get a full and detailed report from the SLO Police
department, comparing the number of incidents in the area
recently with the number of incidents prior to locating the
shelter on Orcutt road.
2) Listen carefully to the residents and business owriers in
the neighborhood to find out what really goes on there. I
personally have witnessed a male urinating along the side of
the road near the shelter, and have heard of other-
incidents. and cannot condone that type of behavior.
3) Consider alternative locations for such a shelter,
preferably on public property away from businesses and
homes.
4) This is, in my opinion, the most important: The homeless
should not be given a place to live at taxpayers' expense.
Churches and other private charities are designed for such
activities. If the council deems it desirable to provide a
residence for the homeless, it should be with the proviso
that they work in exchange for their keep. Even menial jobs
would make them feel better about themselves, and thereby
start them on the road to independence. For instance, look
around the community at things that need doing, such as
street sweeping, weed pulling, general maintenance, etc. Any
observant citizen could look around and produce a list . I
cannot believe that a city would hire a man, and put him on
a $100,000 street sweeper to sweep the streets, when there
are lots of people around begging for work.
I drive by the Orcutt Road facility daily, and see a little
of what goes on. My business and home are both fairly near•
to this location.
Personally. I am opposed to any kind of extension of the
present use of the premises for a homeless shelter.
Thank you.
qD y t m y yours.
nis B. Wheeler. Jr.�