Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Stanwyck Michele Stanwyck < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:5b May 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Planning Commissioners. Please accept our written comments (we will be out of town) regarding Item 5b surprisingly scheduled for final decision on your May 8th meeting. Like all Californians, we support providing services to the homeless in our community and are personally long time supporters of 40 Prado. While the item before you is conceptually a project that would do just that; unfortunately, it appears, as it is currently conceived, to create negative impacts on a residential neighborhood without engaging the residents to provide input on ways to evaluate and mitigate concerns. It seems very strange in San Luis Obispo that a project of this impact was just identified to residents in April 2024 and only one public meeting was held prior to the Planning Commission making a decision. This seems very contrary to the public process that the City Council typically requires of its staff, advisory bodies, and itself. It does not represent the type of community engagement San Luis Obispo touts itself of having. You will likely hear a host of concerns raised by residents on this project at this stage because of the lack of neighborhood engagement. Some that stood out to us as needing further explanation or further review and investigation include.    Lack of resident and  neighborhood engagement.     Lack of opportunities  for resident and neighborhood input on specific aspects and/or impacts of the project.     Incomplete project  information.     Outdated studies.     Discussion as to why 1  this location is a better location than the South Higuera location, given it is miles from the Bob Jones Trail (the location the Grant identifies for encampments that it is providing for) and is not near the concentration of other Social services including  County programs, Prado, and the Motel 6 project underway all of which directly serve the homeless.     On its face this seems  like high density residential which is not consistent with the General Plan and therefore a CEQA exemption seems inconsistent with the City’s General Plan at this stage.     The lack of environmental  review - or at least a conversation on multiple topics to evaluate and identify mitigations to noise, traffic, parking, stormwater runoff, and parks.  We hope that the Planning Commission will uphold both the General Plan and San Luis Obispo’s high value of resident and neighborhood engagement and require actual public engagement and study of this proposed project. Sincerely, The Stanwyck Valentines 2