Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Smith Wendy < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:PC Communication This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. th May 7, 2024 Re: Letter for Planning Commission meeting of SLO County th Meeting date: May 8, 2024, Agenda item 5B, Project GENP-0175-2024 Dear Planning Commissioners, Subject: “Welcome Home Village” proposal of 80 transitional housing cabins for homeless on the parking lot at corner of Bishop Street and Johnson Avenue. I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed project as a homeowner and resident who lives less than a 1/8 of a mile from said project. I am opposed to the city going against the general plan in not only choosing a project site that runs contrary to the city General Plan, but also there has been no environmental review conducted. Proposed site is inconsistent with the General Plan because it failed to solicit community input intentionally, 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. Proposed site goes against CEQA in that it is a huge impact to the residential community, the medical offices that share the parking lot, and the environment. This project has not been transparent to our community and is a huge impact on our residents, yet no one with the city has informed us about this project. The proposed location is inadequate for homeless residents as services are not locally convenient. The closest market is 1 mile away at the bottom of the hill. The Social Services Department is 3 miles away by car. I have been informed that the buildings are of a temporary nature that will be contained within a fence and that a curfew will be instated. This sounds much like a prison. Will homeless residents who miss curfew be expected to wander the neighborhoods until they are able to access the site again? If the homeless residents are not allowed to have vehicles how will they access services in the community? Will homeless residents be ex convicts, drug users, and those with severe mental illnesses? Housing 80 individuals with these possible issues and limited staff is a recipe for failure and disaster for our neighborhood, our community, and our city. Regarding Welcome Home Village proposal: Location of project is contrary to City General Plan and CEQA 1. Location is inadequate for services for homeless residents as they are located 1 to 3 miles away. 2. Proposed site is within 1 mile radius of 3 schools including an elementary, a day care facility, and a high school where children walk to and from school. 3. Proposed site will increase traffic congestion, noise, and parking problems. 4. Proposed site is not near any homeless encampments. 5. Proposed project is a high density residence, which is inconsistent with the R1 low density neighborhood. 6. The adverse impacts to the local community are not being considered. 7. Proposed site is twice as large as other supportive housing projects in SLO including the successful Bishop Street Studios housing project. 1 8. The impact to traffic congestion and parking issues will be exacerbated. 9. Location of project is contrary to City General Plan and CEQA What the Planning Commission should do right now is  Postpone all decisions until the public can participate fully in the review process.  Avoid litigation by rejecting the proposed location as inadequate and requesting a more complete analysis of known impacts to community, traffic, parking, safety and environmental concerns.  Reconsider a location for said project on land in the vicinity of Prado Road and Elks Lane.  Not waive the General Plan or CEQA. It’s not right to make such a risky decision in regards to housing for 80 homeless individuals based on the deadline of a grant with no environmental review or consideration of CEQA and no community support or input. The proposed project will not preserve or enhance the identity of the neighborhoods off of Johnson Avenue, because these neighborhoods predominantly consist of single-family residences on larger lots with adequate setbacks and appropriate scale, as required by the Zoning Code for R-1 and R-2 designations where the maximum allowable density is 7 - 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project involves a density of 80+ individuals on 1.46 acres (which translates to approximately 55 dwelling units per acre). We recognize that the City has chosen to prioritize efforts to address the ongoing issue of homelessness, and we wholeheartedly support the City in their endeavors accordingly. However, we simply want to ensure that actions taken are done so in a way that is thoughtful, sustainable, and considerate of everyone that is affected. Sincerely, Wendy and Garrett Smith sunromancer@gmail.com 2