Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Talke Stefan Talke < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Letter for Planning Commission Meeting 5/8/2024, Agenda Item 5b This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Commissioners, You have, on the surface, a very narrow decision in front of you. Agenda item 5B for May 8th, 2024 is on the consent agenda, indicating that city staff have considered it to be a straightforward “Yes” vote. But, is it really that simple? The question at hand is whether the Welcome Home Village project conforms to the City General Plan, meaning that no rezoning or environmental study (CEQA) is needed. Does the fact that Parcel B of the site is R1 undermine this argument? Does the fact that the piece of land is surrounded by residential R1 and R2 housing change the calculus? I’m not a lawyer—just a simple citizen—and so I don’t really know. But, there sure seems to be a big gray area to this lay-person. The truth is that agenda item 5b is a very controversial decision. Nearly 150 people signed an online petition which details many ways that the proposed project does not conform to the general plan of the city (see link below). The process is incredibly rushed, and the city and county only informed residents about the project 10 days ago. There is no meaningful community input or buy-in, as many of the letters to you show. I urge you to find a way to vote “No” to Agenda Item 5b. This will not sink the project. Instead, it will make the process more democratic. Your decision would likely be appealed and go to the City Council, and they can decide whether the project conforms to the City General Plan. They are our elected officials. On an issue this important, controversial and impactful, they should decide, with input from everyone. I appreciate all the work you do as volunteers. This issue is much more complex than any volunteer can easily digest after a long day at work. The more you look into this, the more you will find that the ramifications of your “yes” vote would be incredibly broad and far-reaching. Please find the courage to “no”, so that this important decision can become a more democratic process, and that you are not pressured into a hasty rubber stamp vote. Best regards, Stefan Talke ps. I am attaching an addendum co-written with a neighborhood member who is in the community. Being in the social services field, he wishes to remain anonymous. However, he feels strongly that the Welcome Home Village is a good project, but in the wrong location. pps. Link to online petition: https://www.change.org/p/welcome-home-general-plan-conformity-report-genp- 0175-2024-2a38e57e-c7fc-4bd1-8c57-46c597ea063e?recruited_by_id=2780d7d0-0c35-11ef-91c6- afd43da4e066&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initi al&utm_medium=copylink Addendum: Synopsis of the “Welcome Home Village” project and potentially adverse effects 1 San Luis Obispo County is planning to build 80 transitional housing cabins for homeless people at the parking lot on Bishop and Johnson in San Luis Obispo. The “Welcome Home Village” project will be placed in the middle of a residential neighborhood, unlike other similar projects on the Central Coast\[1\]. After failing to build the project at their preferred site, the County is fast-tracking approval for the site on 1463 Bishop. They are th planning to find that the site is consistent with the General Plan and requires no further study at a May 8 th meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission (see resolution 5b of the May 8 agenda and the st documents available therein\[2\]). Final approval is scheduled at a May 21 meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. Multiple concerns are described below. No meaningful community outreach or environmental review has occurred. Parking will be adversely impacted, and possibly storm water runoff. The planning has occurred in secret; though the project was only publicized in late April 2024, multiple city and county agencies have already been involved, presumably for months. As described in the documents available with resolution 5b of the planning commission: “The project has been reviewed by various City departments including Community Development, Public Works, Police, and Fire”. Subsequent to the non-public review, the environmental review requirement for the project is proposed to be waived on May 8th, on the basis that the project “is not subject to CEQA because the recommended action before the City’s Planning Commission is only a policy review of whether development of the land is consistent with the City’s General Plan”. However, the “Welcome Home” project is inconsistent with the General Plan because it failed to solicit meaningful community input, fails to promote the use of social services near Prado Road, fails to mitigate against spill-over parking, and fails to protect the density, character and safety of the neighborhood\[3\]. As described below, the county is basically planning to place people with active addictions, mental health issues, and incarceration records in a neighborhood filled with families, elderly people, children, and schools. A 2023 study on adult homelessness in California found that 45% of people experiencing homelessness in California had regular substance use, and 79% had lifetime incarceration rates. The County grant REQUIRES that a Housing First model be used, which means that there can be no expectation that participants stop using drugs or alcohol. Will people experiencing addiction secretly use drugs in their cabins? Will they go into the surrounding neighborhood and parks full of families with children to use substances? Such adverse impacts on the community are not being considered. Plan History th San Luis Obispo County received a grant from the State of California on June 14, 2023 to build high-density housing for up to 80 homeless individuals. The grant was based on an application it submitted (would be th interesting to see that application). On July 13, 2023 SLO County went public with its plan to build 80 transitional housing cabins on a large city-owned lot near the Department of Social Services building on Higuera. The County had determined the South Higuera site was the best location for the project because it: · Was adjacent to the City’s homeless services programs and drop-in center (Prado Homeless Service Center and the Prado Day Center). · Was adjacent to the City’s Healthcare for the Homeless program which accepts Medi-Cal/Sliding Fee Scale and uses Federal grant funding to provide comprehensive care for people experiencing homelessness. This care can be very important given that the UCSF Study on homelessness in California found that 60% of people experiencing homelessness in California rate their health as poor or fair. One third have a chronic disease, and will need to visit a clinic regularly (note: these numbers are expected to be higher for the unsheltered population). The Healthcare for the Homeless Program caters to the special needs of people experiencing homelessness, and is also required to provide substance abuse services. · Was adjacent to the Department of Social Services, where participants could access benefit programs. This is the only location in San Luis Obispo where people can go in person and apply for Medi-Cal, which is a VERY important for people experiencing homelessness. · Was located in a business area, near shops and restaurants that residents could patronize and get supplies, and a quarter mile away from the nearest residential community. · Was amenable for rotating the homeless out of encampments along the Bob Jones trail, again located adjacent to the site. One requirement of the grant is that the site be near an encampment -so you would think they would place it near the encampments where they will be drawing participants from 2 and not on the other side of town. Additionally, one principle of recovery is to try and maintain an individual’s connection to their community which is in the area West of Higuera. The UCSF study referenced above was the largest representative study of homelessness in the US since the 1990s: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing- homelessness . The South Higuera Approval Process: What happened The County tried to quietly and quickly push the South Higuera project through. Newspapers reported that th “There was no communication about the project with the local community prior to the July 11 Board of th Supervisors Meeting” and the July 13 news stories. The local community complained about the project’s size and scope, citing numerous concerns. Additionally, the County tried to skirt a thorough environmental review. However, the attorney contracted by local residents wrote that the project did not qualify for a CEQA exemption because it was inconsistent with SLO’s zoning designation. (This is also true for the proposed off-Johnson site since that area is currently zoned either R1 (low density) or PF (Public Facilities). Given the size and density of the Johnson project, it would have to be zoned medium or high density residential, which is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.). CEQA = The California Environmental Quality Act. The attorney representing residents claimed that the South Higuera project also did not meet the fourth condition for a Class 32 exemption because it would exacerbate traffic, parking, and noise issues in the neighborhood. The off-Johnson proposed project site would likely have these same issues, but much worse. As late as December 2023 the County was insisting that it was still committed to the South Higuera site. th Then, on April 26, 2024 the SLO Tribune reported the News Release about the new Johnson site for the project, and that a community meeting would be held 5 days later. Again, there was no communication or notification with the surrounding community. Once again, the County and City of San Luis Obispo were trying to quietly and quickly push the project through. The 1463 Bishop Street Site The new site on the corner of Bishop and Johnson (Figure 1) is even less appropriate for a high-density homeless housing project than the South Higuera site. Based on a conversation with an expert, one rule of thumb when placing transitional or supportive housing projects in an existing residential community is to keep it small to minimize impact. Another rule of thumb is for the project to blend in with its surroundings. The Welcome Home project does neither. San Luis Obispo has always previously followed these guidelines when placing projects, only placing projects in business districts or smaller projects (5-40 units) styled to match the surrounding community. The Welcome Home project therefore stands out in multiple ways: it doesn’t fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, it is more than twice as large as other supportive housing project in SLO, and will be prominently placed on the main road leading southeast from downtown San Luis Obispo. Given its prominence, it will be the first thing people see upon entering the Johnson-Sinsheimer neighborhoods and will define their impression of the area. Project proponents state that the project “will be similar to other housing projects that have opened recently in the two counties, such as Hope Village in Santa Maria, La Posada in Goleta and Cabins For Change in Grover Beach.” Interestingly, all those projects are placed in government/business complexes set back from main roads and NOT near residential neighborhoods. Project proponents know that the off-Johnson site is very different from the other locations in that it is very large and will be placed in a residential neighborhood. Questions and Concerns Why has the County decided on a small lot that is surrounded on three sides by a residential neighborhood? Why did the County abandon the South Higuera site, which their studies said was the best fit for this project, and where the homeless clientele will be drawn from? The SLO Tribune reported that County deputy director of homeless services Linda Belch said the grant requires the project be near an encampment. If the goal is to clear out the Bob Jones trail encampments, then the off-Johnson site is not near the homeless encampment. Also, the application that was scored and funded would have specified the Prado Road site. Contrary to how the project is being framed, there are many valid concerns for the local community. The off- Johnson site is not near shops, businesses, or restaurants that the residents can patronize, contrary to claims on the County project website\[4\] . The nearest grocery store, Smart and Final, is 0.8 miles way, further away than Sinsheimer Elementary School (0.5 miles). The Healthcare for the Homeless Community Health Center that serves people experiencing homelessness is on the other side of town. The city’s homeless services are on the other side of town. The proposed lot is not zoned for high density residential living, and the surrounding 3 neighborhood is an R1-2 community. The development would displace existing parking. Johnson has become a heavily trafficked road already due to all the new developments in South San Luis Obispo, and this would make things worse. Because the project is literally across the street/next door to R1 residential houses, parking for residents may be adversely affected. The project is remiss is waving an environmental or community impact study. The impact of the development on drainage and stormwater runoff has not been studied, and yet storm water runoff is a known problem on Bishop Street and Sierra Way. The impacts on crime rates and safety have not been presented to the st community. No meaningful community buy-in has been attempted. A two hour meeting on May 1 in which fewer than 15 questions were allowed, with at least 20 unanswered, is not meaningful outreach. Additionally, there is no actionable plan on post-build out community input and monitoring. The proponents of the project argue that there is a benefit to being near County Behavioral Health, but state Medi-Cal only refers Severely Mentally Ill (SMI) people to County Behavioral Health (people with mild to moderate mental health issues are referred to their Medi-Cal managed Care plans). So, for this benefit to be realized, the County would need to fill the site with severely mentally ill residents. This was not mentioned in st the May 1 presentation, or the impact this might have on the residential neighborhood and parks. The 2023 UCSF-CASPEH study\[5\] on adult homelessness in California found that 45% of people experiencing homelessness in California had regular substance use, and 79% had lifetime incarceration rates. The study suggested these numbers are probably higher for the unsheltered population, which is where this project will draw its residents. The Good Samaritan organization that will manage the program states that drug use will not be allowed on site, and that people will need to keep their cabin shades up so that staff can monitor use and identify overdose situations. Yet the grant REQUIRES that a Housing First model be used, which means that there can be no expectation that participants stop using drugs or alcohol. That means that people experiencing addiction will need to secretly use in their cabins, or more probably go into the surrounding neighborhood and st parks full of families with children to use substances. The presentation on May 1 at Renovate Church made no mention of what will be done to identify those that are actively using drugs, to prevent them from leaving the site if they are high/intoxicated or want to get high/intoxicated. Since this is not a locked facility, and the grant requires they cannot enforce abstinence, it would seem there is not much they can do to prevent substance use in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal states that people with past sex offenses will not be allowed in the project. Will people with other violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, assault, arson, and burglary also be excluded from the st program? The presentation on May 1 made no mention of this. Details about implementation have not been addressed. For example, on curfew: will people who miss curfew be expected to wander in the surrounding neighborhoods until they are able to again access the site? Finally, the Bishop/Johnson neighborhood welcomed Bishop Street Studios, one of the largest permanent supportive housing developments for formerly homeless persons in the city. That site was not placed directly across the street from an R1 residential neighborhood. It was set back from the road and sized (34 units) to minimize impact. A process of several years was followed to obtain approval. Why is the County and San Luis Obispo moving so quickly on this project, without considering the community? \[1\] See https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/welcomehomevillage.aspx \[2\] https://pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=557bc1b6-c173-4621-9a8c- 9d950831fc75&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English ; or, go to: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city- council/agendas-and-minutes \[3\] https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan \[4\] https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/welcomehomevillage.aspx \[5\]https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness 4