HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0106 Response to Appeal 1030 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
RECEIVED CALIFORNIA 93401
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY •
COMMISSION * SINCE 1965 (805) 544-4355
FAX(805) 549-8388
CITY OF ATASS(180EH0
May 19, 2004
Wade McKinney, City Manager
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA P3422
Dear Mr �Vl" iiney:
Enclosed please find our written response to all comments and issues raised in the appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of our Conditional Use Permit(CUP2003-0106) for the North County
Shelter project. Time is of the essence with this project so we appreciate that our hearing has been
scheduled for the June 8, 2004 City Council meeting.
If you have questions, please contact Mel Rosenblat, Director of Administration, at 544-4355 x 182. We
look forward to the Council meeting on June 8.
Sincerely,,4
Elizabeth S"'Biz"" inberg
S
Chief Executive fficer
cc: Marcia Torgerson
Enclosure as indicated
0 Child Care Resource Connection•Emergency Services•Energy Conservation• Weatherization Services•
•Family Planning Services*Head Start 9 Homeless Shelter-Migrant Child Care*Senior Health Screening*Teen Parenting Program
•
10
United Way
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF CUP 2003-0106
FOR NORTH COUNTY OVERNIGHT SHELTER
On April 20, 2004, The Atascadero Planning Commission approved CUP 2003-0106,
establishing an overnight shelter, based on findings and subject to conditions and exhibits
as found in Resolution PC 2004-0043.
In doing so, the Planning Commission followed the recommendations of the staff report,
which stated in part:
"The Conditional Use Permit process provides the opportunity for the public and the
Planning Commission to review land use proposals, including architectural design, site
design, landscape, and specific standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
There are five findings of approval that the Planning Commission is required to make
for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit...
...The proposed overnight shelter is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's
Housing Element of the General Plan. The project has been conditioned to integrate
appropriately within the context of the surrounding uses and meets all site development
and appearance review requirements of the zoning ordinance."
As an alternative to approving CUP 2003-0106, the staff report stated that the application
could be denied, but with the following caveat:
"If the Planning Commission denies the project it must be based on the inability to
make one of the five required finding. The motion must include the finding for denial to
be legally valid."
On May 4, 2004, an appeal of the Planning Commission's actions was filed. The appeal
addressed four of the five findings in the staff report. Based on a review of those findings,
the Appellant maintained that the appropriate findings have not been made.
EOC has reviewed the appeal, and has determined that the issues raised are without merit,
as described below.
1
FINDING#1
From the Staffs Conditional Use Permit Findings:
"I. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan."
Staff Comment:
"The use is consistent with the goals of the Housing Element as described in the
analysis, specifically Goal HOS 6 and Policies HOS 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.1.5."
The Appellant states on page 1:
"This finding cannot be made because:
a. The Multi Family Shelter use of the property is inconsistent with the current
Residential Suburban designation of the proposed location. ...This multifamily project
is inconsistent with all the surrounding land uses. "
EOC Response:
The City's General Plan clearly defines certain terms:
"Multifamily Building: A detached building designed and used exclusively as a
dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites."
This definition does not apply to the proposed development.
The Appellant states on page 1:
"b. Approval of the CUP does not meet the goal [of the] General Plan specifically
HOS 6...is to provide more long term affordable housing not homeless shelters. "
EOC Response:
Policy 6.1.3 of the General Plan Housing Element states:
"3. Cooperate with non-profit housing and social service agencies and pursue grants for
providing housing opportunities for special needs groups, such as the homeless and
battered women."
Homeless families and individuals transition through EOC's Homeless Services Case
Management program; this is an essential step in moving into housing. An overnight
shelter is a `housing opportunity' for the homeless, albeit temporary, as stated by the
Appellant in `c' below.
The Appellant states on page 1:
"c. An Emergency Homeless Shelter is contrary to the ultimate goal of the Housing
Element because it provides temporary homes not permanent homes. "
EOC Response:
The General Plan Housing Element states:
"State housing element law requires the analysis of the special housing requirements of
persons and families in need of emergency shelter, and identification of adequate sites
that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and
with public services and facilities needed to facilitate the development of emergency
shelters and transitional housing."
2
i
EOC agrees that the ultimate goal is to have every family and individual safely residing in
decent affordable housing. Until that time the need for overnight shelter facilities will
continue.
FINDING#2:
From the Staffs Conditional Use Permit Findings:
"2. The proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance."
Staff Comment:
"Residential Care Facilities are conditionally allowed uses in residential zones. As
conditioned, the project satisfies all zoning code provisions."
The Appellant states on page 2:
"This Finding cannot be made because:
a) ...While Residential Care Facilities are a conditionally allowed use...an overnight
shelter does not fit...such that facilities are required to provide 24 hour care... "
EOC Response:
The source for this statement was not provided, and no such statement could be found in
any part of the City's General Plan, or in the State code governing such facilities.
The Appellant states on page 2:
"b) California State Health and Safety Code—Section 1267.9 Over concentration —
Health Facilities: New facilities must be 300 feet or more from existing residential
Health or Community Services. Congregate living facilities must be 1000 feet or more
from other existing facilities.
Health and Safety Code Section 1250.5 ...reads the same as 1267.9. "
EOC Response:
The referenced section (1267.9) is a section of Division 2 `Licensing Provisions', Chapter
2, `Health Facilities'. The proposed facility is not a health facility and therefore is not
covered by the referenced section, attached in its entirety to this document.
No reference could be found in Section 1250.5 of the California State Health and Safety
code, which reads in its entirety "1250.5 `Council' means the Advisory Health Council."
The Appellant states on page 2:
"c) The Head Start Day care is a `Community Service'and therefore inconsistent with
this code. "
EOC Response:
See EOC response above with reference to the applicability of this code.
The Appellant states on page 2:
"d) The caretaker home is not allowed in residential zones unless it is for personal
[use] of the homeowner. "
3
EOC Response:
Atascadero's Municipal Code clearly addresses this issue, and allows the use of a caretaker
residence by a lessor:
"9-6.104 Caretaker residence.
One permanent accessory dwelling is permitted...
(b) Status of Caretaker. The resident of the dwelling shall be the owner or lessor, or an
employee of the owner or lessor of the site."
FINDING#3
From the Staffs Conditional Use Permit Findings:
"I The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because
of the circumstances and conditions applied in this particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in
the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the use."
Staff Comment:
"Staff has worked closely with the City Police Department and EOC to identify any
potential neighborhood conflicts that might arise. As conditioned with rigorous
enforcement, the proposed overnight shelter should not be detrimental to the general
public or working people's health, safety, or welfare.
All clients must be kept within the building or the secure patio area upon arrival at the
shelter site. Clients are not permitted onsite or within the neighborhood beyond the
shelter's operating hours of 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. Clients must be transported to
County Regional Transportation Centers upon the closing of the shelter in the
mornings.
The Appellant states on pages 2-3:
"This Finding cannot be made because:
a) ...The following are the conditions that EOC changed which cause the shelter to be
an even greater threat to Atascadero residents.
Condition #6: ...EOC gained the ability to overlap uses between the preschool
operating hours and the shelter operating hours as they see fit. This will allow for
direct contact between preschoolers and `clients'. "
EOC Response:
Condition#6 clearly indicates that children will at all times be under the care and control of
a parent, guardian or EOC staff member.
The Appellant states on page 3:
"Condition #21 ...All shelter clients be screened by the County Sheriff's Department
for sex offender status by the next available date...This change puts the health, safety,
and welfare of other shelter occupants,...and the immediate neighborhood at risk.
... it is imperative that screening be done on a very strict regular and consistent basis.
This is in direct contradiction to the security goals of the Police and City Staff. "
4
EOC Response:
Condition 21 reflects language and conditions developed jointly by City staff, the interim
Police Chief and EOC staff. This language was developed to allow the greatest flexibility
should methods of screening improve, up to and including the possibility of"real time"
screening, while meeting the security needs and goals of both the City, the shelter and the
child care centers.
The Appellant states on page 3:
"Condition #27...EOC and Planning Commission...change this condition [from one
requiring cameras in indoor common areas] to read, `All (only) outdoor areas of the
shelter shall be monitored by security cameras. ' ...this is a direct preference over
neighborhood safety. '
EOC Response:
EOC staff and volunteers feel that cameras in the indoor areas of the shelter are intrusive
without adding to the security of the neighborhood, which is addressed by the outside
cameras. City staff and the Planning Commission agreed with this and thus changed the
language in the final condition accordingly.
The Appellant states on page 3:
"Condition #32...agreed to allow late arrivals to enter the shelter from a yet to be
determined `Offsite pickup plan. '
. . . but also allow them to enter independently leaving a gap in the safety conditions."
EOC Response:
Condition 32 does not allow clients to arrive independently; at the hearing on this CUP the
Planning Commission determined that Condition 32 is to clearly state:
"...Any late arrivals shall meet shelter personnel as detailed in an `offsite pickup plan,'
approved by the City Police chief and be escorted to the site." (Emphasis added.)
The Appellant states on page 3-4:
"Condition #34 This means that clients of the Homeless Shelter, regardless from
where they come, will stay in Atascadero. "
EOC Response:
At the hearing on this CUP the Planning Commission determined that Condition 34 shall
read:
"Condition#34...all shelter clients, without vehicles, shall be transported offsite per
a regional transportation plan to be developed and approved by the City Police
Chief." (Emphasis added.)
If clients wish to return to Paso Robles or other areas for jobs, school or other activities,
that will be facilitated. Clients with duties and responsibilities in Atascadero will be
facilitated in reaching their destination. Nowhere is it stated that clients without vehicles
shall stay in Atascadero. Additionally, the offsite transportation plan must be approved by
the Police Chief who, according to Condition 34 "may review and amend this plan on an
`as needed' basis."
5
The Appellant states on page 4:
"b) The establishment, and subsequent operation of the Emergency Overnight Shelter
will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the
neighborhood. "
EOC Response:
EOC, City staff including the interim Police Chief, and the Planning Commission feel that
the 54 conditions placed on the project adequately protect the health, safety and welfare of
"...the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use..."
The shelter site is surrounded on three sides by a six foot fence; access is only from El
Camino Real; the facility will have exterior lighting sufficient only to provide security;
there will be no outside activities after 10:00 p.m.; no daytime usage by clients; and no
clients on site outside Shelter hours or without staff supervision.
The Appellant states on page 4:
"c) The presence of the shelter will have an adverse affect on the market value of
properties on Santa Cruz Road...and will therefore force a lower selling price to the
homes. "
EOC Response:
The Planning Commission, City staff, and EOC disagree. From the staff report:
"As conditioned with rigorous enforcement, the proposed overnight shelter should not
be detrimental to the general public or working people's health, safety, or welfare."
The only moderately comparable situation is that of the Villa Rosa development in San
Luis Obispo, which is the closest residential development to the Maxine Lewis Memorial
Shelter, also operated by EOC. In 1999, the median home sale price in this development
was $195,900; in 2003, $392,000. This reflects a four-year increase of more than 100%,
which in fact outpaces the countywide real estate appreciation of approximately 84% in the
same time period. It is therefore difficult to determine exactly what effect, if any,the
development of this shelter will have on neighborhood real estate values and appreciation.
FINDING#4
From the Staffs Conditional Use Permit Findings:
"4. The proposed use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate
neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development."
Staff Comment:
"As conditioned, the proposed use is located in a transitional area between commercial and
residential zoning districts. The preschools have been onsite for a number of years and are
a part of the existing neighborhood. All access is limited to El Camino Real and as
conditioned, the project would not impede on the residential areas of Santa Cruz Road."
The Appellant states on page 5:
a) The proposed project is inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood
because Santa Cruz Road is zoned as Suburban Residential...and an Emergency Overnight
Shelter is Multi Family living. "
6
EOC Response:
As stated above, the City's General Plan clearly defines certain terms:
"Multifamily Building: A detached building designed and used exclusively as a
dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites."
This definition does not apply to the proposed development.
The Appellant states on page 5:
"b) . . . The implication of a `transitional area'does not make null and void the pre
established and official zoning of Residential Suburban. "
EOC Response:
From the staff report:
"The overnight shelter is defined as a Residential Care Facility, which is a conditionally
allowed use in the RS Zone."
The use is allowed, and nothing in the application makes "null and void" the "official
zoning of Residential Suburban. "
"EHAP APPLICATION DISCREPANCIES"
The Appellant also raised issues with"EHAP Application Discrepancies".
The Appellant states:
"EHAP Application Discrepancies are as follows:
Page 8, Item #H
Although beds are given a priority list the EOC has declared that `no bed goes unfilled
because of priority status. All beds are filled each night. '
Public Workshop meetings it was stated by the EOC that the floor plan remain flexible
so as to be able to switch dormitories between single men and women with children just
in case the number of single me[n] is larger than the number of women with
child[ren]. "
EOC Response:
EOC case managed clients are given a priority bed. No bed goes unfilled because of
priority status. All beds are filled each night. This means if a client has a priority bed but
does not come to shelter intake on a given night, that bed will not be left vacant but will be
filled that night by another client with high priority. Further, the floor plan needs to remain
flexible so that we may accommodate different groupings of individuals and families. This
does not mean that EOC anticipates serving more single men than families or single
women.
7
The Appellant states:
"Pages 11, 13 Item #3a and 18 Item 4D1 e and page 16 4e and Page 20 and 22-B Item
M.I.I.
EOC's plan to provide expanded facilities and services are mentioned in these
sections. "
EOC Response:
EOC has no "plan" to provide expanded facilities and services. The EHAP application was
submitted in February 2001, describing the shelter design and strategy that were envisioned
at that time. Based on community input during the three community workshops, EOC's
shelter strategy was modified to eliminate expansion of the facilities or services.
The Appellant states:
"Page 13 Item #3b
Despite the EOC's public claims that the homeless population is primarily women with
children, the elderly and families, the statistics given to the State claim the opposite. "
EOC Response:
The EHAP application clearly stated that the statistics shown were for the existing
Homeless Shelter in San Luis Obispo which served clients from all over the county.
The type of clients to be served by the North County Shelter could not be anticipated in
February 2001 when the application was submitted.
The Appellant states:
"Page 14 Item #3d
It is stated that the North County `has almost no public transit so the new Shelter will
need a strong transportation strategy to ensure that homeless persons can utilize
critical services. '
Please see proposed Condition #34 and approved condition #34. "
EOC Response:
The transportation strategy mentioned in the EHAP application is consistent with the final
language of Condition 34; i.e.:
At the hearing on this CUP the Planning Commission determined that Condition 34 shall
read:
"Condition #34...all shelter clients,without vehicles, shall be transported offsite per a
regional transportation plan to be developed and approved by the City Police Chief."
(Emphasis added.)
The Appellant states:
"Page 16 Item #4f
The EOC states that they do not expect any current funding to become unavailable,
however, The City of Atascadero is on record saying it is unable to provide funding for
8
the operation of this project. Paso Robles is uncommitted to establishing the consistent
funding for this project for the next several years. This leaves a dangerous gap in the
EOC's financial stability and therefore the stability of the shelter. "
EOC Response:
Operations funding is not a land use issue and is therefore not relevant to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
The Appellant states:
"Page 30 Appendix G
The expenses tabulated by the EOC confirm its dependence on large amounts of
funding from CDBG funds, Cityfunding, and In-Kind Commitments.
The EOC has asked for$200,000 from the North County but that is hardly enough to
operate at the projected expenses causing greater financial burden on Atascadero. "
EOC Response:
Operations funding is not a land use issue and is therefore not relevant to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
9
M
California State Health and Safety Code.
1267. 9. (a) The Legislature hereby declares it to be the policy of
the state to prevent overconcentrations of intermediate care
facilities/development ally disabled habilitative, intermediate care
facilities/developmentally disabled-nursing, congregate living health
facilities, or pediatric day health and respite care facilities, as
defined in Section 1760.2, which impair the integrity of residential
neighborhoods. Therefore, the director shall deny an application for
a new intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled
habilitative license, a new intermediate care
facility/developmentally disabled-nursing license, a congregate
living health facility, or a pediatric day health and respite care
facility license if the director determines that the location is in
such proximity to an existing intermediate care
facility/developmentally disabled habilitative, an intermediate care
facility/developmentally disabled-nursing, a congregate living health
facility, or a pediatric day health and respite care facility as
would result in overconcentration.
(b) As used in this section, "overconcentration" means that if a
new license is issued, either of the following will occur:
(1) There will be intermediate care facilities/developmentally
disabled habilitative, intermediate care facilities/developmentally
disabled-nursing, residential care facilities, as defined in Section
1502, or pediatric day health and respite care facilities which are
separated by a distance of less than 300 feet, as measured from any
point upon the outside walls of the structures housing the
facilities.
(2) There will be congregate living health facilities serving
persons who are terminally ill, diagnosed with a life-threatening
illness, or catastrophically and severely disabled, as defined in
Section 1250, which are separated by a distance of less than 1, 000
feet, as measured from any point upon the outside walls of the
structures housing the facilities.
Based on special local needs and conditions, the director may
approve a separation distance of less than 300 feet or 1, 000 feet,
whichever is applicable, with the approval of the city or county in
which the proposed facility will be located.
(c) At least 45 days prior to approving any application for a new
intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled habilitative, a
new intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-nursing, a
congregate living health facility, or a pediatric day health and
respite care facility, the director shall notify, in writing, the
city or county planning authority in which the facility will be
located, of the proposed location of the facility.
(d) Any city or county may request denial of the license applied
for on the basis of overconcentration of intermediate care
facilities/developmentally disabled habilitative, intermediate care
facilities/developmentally disabled-nursing, a congregate living
health facility, or a pediatric day health and respite care facility.
(e) Nothing in this section authorizes the director, on the basis
of overconcentration, to refuse to renew an intermediate care
facility/development ally disabled habilitative license, an
intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-nursing license,
a congregate living health facility license, or a pediatric day
health and respite care facility license, or to refuse to grant a
license upon a change of ownership of an existing intermediate care
facility/developmentally disabled habilitative, intermediate care
facility/developmentally disabled-nursing, a congregate living health
facility, or a pediatric day health and respite care facility where
10
v
+ there is no change in the location of the facility.
(f) Foster family homes and residential care facilities for the
elderly shall not be considered in determining overconcentration of
intermediate care facilities/developmentally disabled-habilitative,
intermediate care facilities/developmentally disabled-nursing,
residential care facilities, as defined in Section 1502, congregate
living health facilities, or pediatric day health and respite care
facilities.
11