HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Latzke-Davis
Brooke Latzke-Davis <
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 Planning Commission,
I am a resident of the city of San Luis Obispo and I appreciate you taking the time to read my comments
pertaining to agenda item 5b: "Adopt the Draft Resolution, which determines that the proposed San Luis
Obispo County’s action on the subject property to authorize and/or construct public buildings or structures for
the purposes of developing interim and supportive housing conforms to the City’s General Plan"
I am concerned about the county's proposed plan to develop the Welcome Home Village on Bishop Street. I
urge the commission to *do not* find the proposed land consistent with the city's General Plan. The project is
inconsistent with a number of General Plan policies, including, but not limited to the following:
Land Use Element, Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods, Policy 2.1: The City
shall preserve, protect, and enhance the City’s neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their identity
and promote a higher quality of life within each neighborhood.
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.
Land Use Element, Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods, 2.14.E-F: Involve
residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts, by
notifying residents and property owners and holding meetings at convenient times and places within the
neighborhoods. Provide appropriate staff support, and train all staff to be sensitive to issues of neighborhood
protection and enhancement.
The City has taken no action to involve residents in reviewing the proposed project that is known to be
controversial, and widely considered to result in significant impacts to the neighborhoods off of Johnson
Avenue.
Instead, the County hosted only one community meeting on May 1, 2024 providing very little advanced
notice. To be informed of basic information about the meeting including the location, one was required to
“Register” by providing their first and last name and email address on an internet form. At the community
meeting, project proponents indicated that the Board of Supervisors already had established plans to approve
the project at their meeting on May 21, 2024, but never once mentioned that the Planning Commission was
scheduled to determine if the project was consistent with the General Plan on May 8, 2024. Local residents
have been given approximately 20 calendar days to attempt to understand the scope of this project and what
opportunities, if any, are available for public engagement and participation. Actions that both the City and
County have taken relative to this project are directly contributing to widespread distrust of the public process
among our community.
Land Use Element, Public and Cultural Facilities Policy 5.1.7: Dwellings may be provided only as caretaker
quarters, as shelters (with discretionary review), or as part of a specially approved mixed-use
1
development. The appropriate residential density would be set considering the maximum residential density
allowed in any neighboring land use district.
This policy requires the density of government projects within residential areas to be considerate of the
maximum residential density allowed in neighboring zones.
The proposed project is not of a size, density, or quality that respects the neighborhood character and
maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. The proposed project involves a density of 80+
individuals on 1.46 acres (which translates to approximately 55 dwelling units per acre), whereas the
neighborhoods off of Johnson Avenue are predominately zoned R-1 and and R-2 where the maximum
allowable density is 7-12 dwelling units per acre.
Housing Element, Neighborhood Quality Policy 7.1: Within established neighborhoods, new residential
development shall be of a character, size, density, and quality that respects the neighborhood character and
maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
As stated above, the proposed project is not of a size, density, or quality that respects the neighborhood
character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. The proposed project involves a
density of 80+ individuals on 1.46 acres (which translates to approximately 55 dwelling units per acre),
whereas the neighborhoods off of Johnson Avenue are predominately zoned R-1 and and R-2 where the
maximum allowable density is 7-12 dwelling units per acre.
In addition to the above items, it is my opinion that the scale of this project is too large, and is in fact much
larger than its counterparts in other areas of the County and State. I am uncertain if this is under the Planning
Commission's purview, but it is important to note that individuals who have lived unhoused for a period of time
become dysregulated and experience an (often difficult) period of time trying to re-regulate into a housed
environment. People who've experienced homelessness also often experience mental health conditions
and/or alcohol or drug addictions. Jamming 80+ individuals who experience all or a variety of these conditions
into a small confined area does not seem conducive with the improved quality of life that they would be trying
to achieve. It seems like it would not only negatively impact these individuals, but the quality of life for the
surrounding community as well.
I strongly urge the Planning Commission to either:
Do not find the proposed use of land consistent with the General Plan; or at the very least,
Continue the item to a future date, and direct staff to:
Collect an adequate amount of information about the project;
Conduct a comprehensive analysis of consistency with all General Plan Policies such that
a defensible decision can be made; and
Create additional opportunities for public engagement so that the project can be shaped
in such a way that it is considerate of all interests.
2
Thank you for reading my comments.
Regards,
Brooke Latzke-Davis
3