Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Blum CB < 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. Project No: GENP-0175-2024 Dear San Luis Obispo Planning Commission: I am writing as a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed homeless project at Johnson and Bishop roads. First and foremost, I object to the insufficient notice that was given to residents, a lack of an inclusive process, an accelerated timetable (June 30, 2024 per ERF-3-R), and the non-conformance of this Project to the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan (1). The “Welcome Home Village Project” is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan because it fails 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. The lack of a sobriety requirement and the enforcement of a no drug, no alcohol policy are extremely problematic. Once a project resident leaves their temporary or permanent home and goes out in the county, they can abuse substances and return to the project having used them off site. What stops them from doing this? Where might these transactions take place? On our streets? In our neighborhoods? Near our children’s paths that they take to walk, bike, or bus to school? Will we encounter needles when we walk our dogs in the well-established areas adjacent and near to the project? Approximately half of the property is zoned R-1 which was the expected use when residents purchased homes in the area. This is a residential area, so the platted zoning should be adhered to and not modified or ignored. There are currently over 100 parking spaces that will be removed from the development of this project. This will cause spillover into our neighborhoods, causing congestion and traffic issues. I am urging the Planning Commission to either vote "No" or vote for a continuance of the Draft Resolution (Agenda item 5b) to allow the timeline to be expanded for adequate resident input and vetting, and the evaluation of more suitable locations that are not in 1 residential areas. For example, finding locations on or near the Bob Jones Trail homeless encampment or the Prado Homeless shelter should be pursued. Thank you and regards, Cindy Blum (1) https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/planning-zoning/general-plan 2