HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - WINTER SHELTER LOCATION UPDATE (2)3" l
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
NEW BUSINESS City Manager Approval: �^
Item to be presented by: Frank Ferry
DATE: April 27, 2004
SUBJECT: WINTER SHELTER LOCATION UPDATE
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for grant money to an
organization to administer a program to address the homeless issues and the establishment of a
temporary housing program and direct staff to return at a future City Council meeting after the
RFP process is complete.
1:1_�ilKtI:Z�1�1►D7
Since 1997, the City of Santa Clarita has been providing funding towards the operation of a
winter shelter for the community's homeless population. The shelter has been temporary in
nature and has been located initially at the Sports Complex and most recently at the Princessa
Metrolink station. The shelter is operated by the Santa Clarita Community Development
Corporation (SCCDC). Over the past few years, the SCCDC has expressed that they would like
to work with the City to come to a consensus on the long-term solution for the shelter.
At the October 28, 2003 City Council meeting, Councilmember Ferry agreed to establish a group
of community leaders to create a siting criteria for a permanent location within the City and a
number of possible locations which included a tour of the City.
The committee reviewed a list of criteria for the possible locations. This list included issues such
as proximity to residential, commercial, institutional and industrial uses, the availability of
transit, access to work centers and utilities and the use of existing buildings. Using this criteria,
a list of possible locations was established primarily using a list that was prepared by the
SCCDC. Each of these sites were analyzed and a list of preferred locations was prepared. A
copy of this information is attached to this report.
Councilmember Ferry recruited a number of community leaders who are experts in their field and
are not actively involved in the issue to provide an independent analysis and be part of a tour of
possible locations in the City. Those in attendance included: Lance Williams, a local residential
developer; Randy Wrage, a local industrial developer; Brad Berans, Director of the Senior
Center; Arthur Sohikian, a local political consultant; and Rick Putnam, former Director of Parks
Recreation and Community Services for the City of Santa Clarita. The consensus of the group
was that constructing a permanent shelter would have issues and impacts no matter where the
facility would be located in the City.
A discussion subsequently ensued regarding what makes up the homeless population in Santa
Clarita. The population includes youths 18 years old and over who are displaced from foster
care or are unable to live with their parents, single parents with children or families who have
been displaced from unsafe situations and the traditional transient population.
In lieu of providing funding for a shelter location, another approach was envisioned. The
establishment of a grant to an organization who would manage the care of homeless population
would allow more flexibility in serving their needs. The funds for this grant could possibly come
from the CDBG program after 2005 and/or City Council Contingency funds. City staff will
prepare an RFP to be sent to various organizations that may be able to provide this service. Once
the the RFP process is complete, the item would return to the City Council for additional
discussion and action. The City has averaged approximately $45,000 per year in expenditures
towards the homeless shelter.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Council may:
1. Continue to provide annual partial funding and a location towards an
annual temporary shelter.
2. Determine that there is no suitable location within the City for a shelter.
3. Any other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There has not been any funding set aside for the item. If the City Council affirms the
recommendation and eventually enters into a contract, the funding may come from a number of
possible sources including the City Council contingency account and future CDBG funds (after
2005). Additionally, it is important to note that the potential approval of such a contract will
constitute a new and ongoing commitment of monetary resources by the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Possible Homeless Shelter Site Locations
POSSIBLE HOMELESS SHELTER SITE LOCATIONS
The following is a siting criteria for placement of a permanent location for a homeless shelter in the Santa
Clarita Valley. The facility would be administered by the Santa Clarita Community Development
Corporation (SCCDC), a coalition of local religious and non-profit groups which have for a number of
years established a temporary winter shelter for the homeless. The SCCDC is seeking a permanent
facility and is seeking the City's assistance in reaching their goal. The outline below highlights the needs
of selecting an appropriate site for the facility.
LOCATION CRITERIA
When locating a homeless shelter facility in the community, a number of factors must be reviewed. The
following is a list of location criteria for the facility:
• If the facility is located on undeveloped land, a minimum of a half acre is necessary to
accommodate new construction, setbacks, parking and landscaping.
• Residential Uses — The facility should be located as far away from existing residential uses due to
the concerns raised by residents. A good rule of thumb should be a minimum of 1,500 feet.
• Schools — The facility needs to have a similar distance requirement to that of the residential uses.
Placement near a continuation high school, adult school or trade school may be warranted.
• Commercial - The placement of the facility in a commercial area would require the consensus of
the business owners in the area since this use could be seen as a detriment to their livelihood by
deterring potential business opportunities.
• Industrial — The placement of the facility in an industrial zone is generally preferred due to its
distance from residential uses and the fact that the facility is open during off-peak hours for the
industrial uses.
• Transit — The facility should be located along or in close proximity to an existing transit route
with access to rail transit.
• Utilities — The site should have or be able to have water, sewer, telephone and electricity
available. Natural gas and cable television, though not required, would make the facility more
efficient.
• Work centers — A facility near a major work center would allow shelter residents an avenue to
transition into a more traditional living arrangement.
• Roads — The facility should be located near a major highway, however not directly on the
roadway since there may be a concern raised by the community since this location may be quite
visible.
• Existing buildings — The placement of the facility in an existing building has both positives and
negatives. The positives include that the building is already in the community, permanent and
does not look as transitional as the portable facility. The negatives include the extra cost of initial
purpose and the cost to retrofit the building to meet the requirements of the use.
POSSIBLE LOCATIONS
The SCCDC prepared a list of possible locations that they analyzed as possible locations for the facility.
Below is a list of the sites they reviewed:
1. The City of Santa Clarita Sports Complex — this site was selected based upon the facility
previously using the site, City owned and central location. The negatives include the anticipated
build out of the facility and the concern of parents with the youth using the sports facility and the
users of the homeless facility interfacing.
2. The 38 acres adjacent to the Sports Complex — This is a vacant hillside location adjacent to the
Sports Complex. The issues are similar to those of the Sports Complex - the only difference is
that the site is not developed.
3. Santa Clarita Business Park — While the site is located in an industrial park setting, the majority
of the sites have been spoken for and the remaining ones are quite costly.
4. The Porta Bella Yard — This is part of the Bemute site and is currently under environmental
cleanup. This site has numerous negatives including contamination, uncertainty of future plans
and length of time to develop.
5. Edison lot on Magic Mountain Parkway — This site is located at the Edison substation near
Tourney Road. The positive aspects include a secluded location, correct zoning, low cost of land
and near major transportation routes. The negatives are the proximity of people to the electrical
transmission lines, distance to utilities, not centrally located and the proximity to the multi-
family units along Magic Mountain Parkway.
6. Hart Pony League — The negatives on this site include the interfacing with the youth, the
concerns of the auto dealers (especially with the possibility of a Mercedes Benz dealership to be
adjacent to the site), and requirement for a specific plan modification.
7. County Maintance Yard — The site which is located on Placerita Canyon Road does not meet the
size requirements for a homeless shelter.
8. Pioneer Oil Refinery — The site has a number of issues including both on and off site
contamination, surrounding non -desirable land uses and the liability of placing people near the
aging facility. However, the site is located away from residential and commercial uses and near
transit routes.
9. 23870 Pine Street — The site is adjacent to the Pioneer Oil Refinery and has the same issues as
described above.
10. Comer of Sierra and San Fernando Road — While the site is located along major transit routes,
the proximity to the 14 Freeway and the San Fernando Valley may not serve the Santa Clarita
Valleys needs and may attract "outsiders". In addition, there are many site issues including
biological constraints, no utilities and floodway requirements.
11. The Gates Property — The project site is currently in litigation and placement of the homeless
facility may cause additional litigation. Since the site has a development agreement, the time
frame for development could extend out many years.
12. The Honey House — This site, located on Sierra Highway is not centrally located and its
proximity to new residential development would cause community concern. However, it is an
existing building with no immediate neighbors and in an industrial area. The existing building
could serve the needs of the shelter. There is parking, sewer and accessibility issues.
13. Drayton Properties — This would include a City owned parcel and an adjacent parcel owned by
Waste Management. The location of this site meets the needs for location away from residential
and commercial properties and proximity to transit routes. However the site is located in the
middle of a heavy industrial area adjacent to the solid waste company's service yard and in close
proximity to the potential new materials recovery facility (MRF). Providing shelter to individuals
at this location may create a health hazard through the routine transport, use or recovery of
materials adjacent to the site.
14. Grace Baptist Church Land — This site would have major community opposition due to its
proximity to hundreds of residential units.
15. Carl Court and San Fernando — The site is located next to Green Thumb Nursery and is about to
receive approval for a shopping center and market.
16. Weyerhauser Drive — Located next to the Via Princessa Metrolink station. This site is about to be
acquired by the Sulphur Springs School District for a new maintenance facility.
The following was identified as an additional possible location for the facility:
17. San Fernando Road South of Via Princessa — This site is located adjacent to the Newhall Creek
and next to public transit with limited development ability of the site. The negatives includes site
development costs including floodway improvements and proximity to existing residences.
PREFERRED SITES WHICH MERIT MORE RESEARCH
Five of the sites listed above were identified as sites that merit additional research. They include The
Edison location identified as site #5, the Pioneer Oil Refinery sites identified as number #8 and #9, the
Honey House identified as #12 and the Drayton Street site identified as #13.
FLF:lep
Pbs\council\memo homeless 0404
3