HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Emerson
From:Emerson Family <
To:district1@co.slo.ca.us; district2@co.slo.ca.us; district3@co.slo.ca.us; district4
@co.slo.ca.us; district5@co.slo.ca.us
Cc:Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan; Advisory
Bodies; dchavez@co.slo.ca.us
Subject:Proposed "Welcome Home Village" Site on Johnson Ave in San Luis Obispo
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear John Peschong, Bruce Gibson, Dawn Ortiz-Legg, Jimmy Paulding, and Debbie Arnold:
This letter is in opposition to the proposed Johnson site for the “Welcome Home Village.” The originally
planned site for a “Welcome Home Village” was clearly chosen because it was distanced from single-family
housing to reduce neighborhood impacts and because it was a more commercial area near 40 Prado and
Social Services, both of which currently serve the unhoused. The Prado area has no preschools, elementary,
or high schools nearby that students need to access by foot or bicycle daily. 40 Prado area also even has
plans for expansion. Notwithstanding impacts on the immediate location, it is an area that has benefited the
entire community due to appropriate planning in addressing a complicated and challenging problem. For
legitimate reasons, the County was forced to reconsider the location off S. Higuera; however, the Johnson site
is not an appropriate or prudent substitute.
Consider location and size: Other “Welcome Home Village” and Dignity Moves sites are almost exclusively in
commercial or business areas. Looking at aerial shots of multiple sites clearly reveals this. Even the Santa
Barbara, Isla Vista, and Grover Beach model sites serve as such examples. Additionally, these same three
sites specifically referenced on the County’s website about the project are incomparable to the proposed site
on Johnson, each housing 34, 20, and 20, respectively–far less than half the large 80+ projected size of the
Johnson site. All three sites are much smaller or on the periphery of the communities or both, in more urban or
commercial areas–nothing like the Johnson site.
The Johnson site, by contrast, is actually surrounded on three sides by single-family housing. Even half of the
proposed project appears to be zoned as R1 as of March 2024. The site is also one block or less from three
preschools and on the designated safe walking route to nearby Sinsheimer Elementary and San Luis High
School. There are so many schools because there are so many families. Parents have legitimate reasons to be
concerned. While the community needs more beds for the unhoused, most people would not consider it to be
prudent to put a facility with a significant percentage of residents with mental health diagnoses and substance
abuse disorders in such a location. It is hard to believe there are not more suitable locations for such an
enormous project.
As one would expect and hope, the site does not allow alcohol or drugs on premises, both difficult to prevent,
but it does not require sobriety–that is disconcerting. Additionally, the fact that the site will need to be fenced,
with private security and cameras, confirms that there are concerns about safety for the residents of the facility
and those nearby. This runs contrary to hyperbolic picturesque architectural renderings of this group’s other
projects that include artistic bridges, pathways, and even food trucks, as if the “Welcome Home Village” were
the next SLO Marketplace gathering spot. While it is unfortunate that homelessness, drug addiction, and
mental health diagnoses are often stigmatized and/or criminalized, there are challenges and risks in housing
such a large population in such a residential location. SLO County crime mapping data shows the largest
concentration of calls occurring in those areas most heavily impacted by homelessness. Any local police officer
and firefighter will acknowledge that this population requires more of their time and assistance than any other
1
demographic. Unfortunately, the two articles about crime data on the County’s website about the project are
not only sadly outdated but also do not really address the larger concerns community members have about the
impact of homelessness–it would be oversimplification to reduce the public’s concerns to being about crime.
Besides these concerns, logistically, the large-scale project is inappropriate for even more reasons. The
County claims the site is ideal because of its proximity to the Crisis Stabilization Unit, Public Health and
Probation; however, CSU and Probation are in no way services the shelter residents need access to everyday,
some not at all. As far as the access to a bus stop, the City can put a bus stop anywhere. These are not
convincing reasons to choose a site that has so many clear drawbacks in an attempt to lump together loosely
related services and call it a “campus”. Besides, as the County website explains, the services will be provided
by the site itself, so it could be placed in a more suitable location–with a bus stop nearby. Residents will,
however, need meals everyday along with other services located elsewhere. For example, Prado currently
serves two meals a day and provides medical care, but it is across town from the Johnson site. Additionally,
the proposed Johnson site is currently a parking lot that is at near full capacity M-F. This will result in impacting
nearby neighborhoods again. The County website dismissed the topic of parking stating most of the unhoused
do not have vehicles; however, some do–and so do those treating them, and so do all the current employees,
customers, and patients of the existing facilities. There is not a convincing rationale for the proposed Johnson
location besides that the County owns the land and has a deadline for the grant.
The “Welcome Home Village” concept is a good one with some success, as noted by the County, and it could
provide dignity, safety, and support for a vulnerable and needy population. Unfortunately, the County does not
have the most impressive track record with the failure of the Kansas Ave. safe parking site being a costly
reminder that large-scale projects are better suited after proving success on a smaller scale–that is especially
important to consider for San Luis Obispo. The County should find the ideal location for this project and
proceed knowing they have the support of the community, but this is a project that should be implemented in
an appropriate, prudent, and more suitable location. Unfortunately, the County is clearly in a hurry to utilize this
enormous grant within the deadline, but that should not come at the expense of some of the community. It is
quite unfortunate that those living near the proposed site were not even informed until a resident was
approached by KSBY. This is an enormous, costly project that has proven short-term funding but potentially
long-term impacts that cannot be dismissed. It is difficult to interpret the County’s plan for this Johnson site and
approach to introducing this proposed project as any other way than problematic. It is imperative that the
County consider these concerns and respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Emerson
San Luis Obispo resident
2