HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/2022 Item 4a, Haynes
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Jan Haynes silcom <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Public Comment for Planning Commission May 11 - USE-0103-2022
Attachments:Haynes Letter to Commission_USE-0103-2022_2022 May 11.docx
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello, please see attached, public comment for tonight’s meeting. Regarding 1701 Monterey St. proposal, File USE-0103-
2022.
Thank you,
Jan Haynes
1
Page 1 of 2
Jan and Ron Haynes
1821 Conejo Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
May 11, 2022
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
advisorybodies@slocity.org
Re: 1701 Monterey St. (USE-0103-2022)
Request to Establish Multi-Vendor Facility
Dear Commissioners:
We live in the San Luis Drive neighborhood which is adjacent to this project. We are writing to express
our concerns about the expansion in uses proposed by this project and the potential negative impacts
on noise, lighting, traffic, privacy, and environment.
Our concerns & questions are:
1. Noise Generating Uses & Ordinance 1651
Ordinance 1651 (your Attachment D) establishes eighteen (18) design criteria to ensure that any new
development or use, or expansion of existing development or use, is compatible with the adjacent
neighborhood and creek.
Criteria 6 & 7 require that uses be adequately buffered from the creek and adjacent residences, and it
specifically calls out that “noise generating uses such as outdoor bars and gathering areas shall be
located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer.”
Contrary to these requirements, the project proposes several exterior, noise-generating areas which are
not buffered by buildings:
• Zones A, D, and E for Outdoor Recreation – enclosed only by fencing
• Sites 17 for Food Trucks – wide open, no building buffer, no fencing
These areas need to be interior and adequately buffered in order to comply with Ordinance 1651.
2. Significant Expansion of Uses
The Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attach. D, Section 4) states that “The project is categorically
exempt from environmental review” (CEQA) because it involves negligible or no expansion of existing or
former use.” This is simply not true.
This project proposes entirely new uses and expansion of uses! Other than “General Retail,” every use
proposed by the applicant is NEW for this location:
• Commercial kitchens – NEW
Page 2 of 2
• Food trucks & mobile food vendors – NEW
• Brewery production and tasting – NEW
• Distillery production and tasting – NEW
• Kombucha production and tasting – NEW
• Winery production and tasting – NEW
• Outdoor recreational incl. pickle ball, cornhole, axe throwing – NEW
• Outdoor BBQ – NEW
• Live entertainment – NEW
• Local activity shuttle – NEW
This project is not exempt from CEQA. We request environmental review.
Also, Section 2 says the previous use included a restaurant. That’s not accurate. And Section 3.3 states
that “The project would utilize the existing building and outdoor areas. No building addition or structure
is proposed.” Aren’t food trucks structures?
3. Impacts of Multi-Vendor Facility
The request is for a multi-vendor facility, a first for this location. The applicant names a disparate variety
of eight (8) separate businesses who will be initially involved, including food trucks on a daily rotational
basis. Those eight businesses will undoubtedly morph over time. Each separate business will have
suppliers making deliveries, waste needing disposal, equipment needing servicing, presumably at all
hours of the day or (worse) night. The proposal says nothing about traffic flow for loading and
unloading, where servicers will park, or what their schedules will be.
This location was previously only one (1) business, the retailer Daylight Home & Patio offering furniture
and plants. The applicant doesn’t give staffing/occupancy estimates but it’s safe to say that, given so
many new uses and multi-vendors, that the number of people expected on site – staff, customers,
servicers – will be dramatically more than the 8-10 people who ever browsed Daylight Home at any
given time.
What are the impacts on noise, lighting, odors, privacy, and safety? How will impacts be mitigated?
What about traffic flow for servicers? Where will they park? An environmental review will be useful.
Additional questions: Who will have overall responsibility on a day-to-day basis? Should there be a limit
on number of businesses? Limits on type of business?
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. We look forward to answers to our questions.
Respectfully,
Jan & Ron Haynes