Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2014 th whitneyKremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:28 AM To: Kremke, Kate -� Subject: RE: Town Hall Meeting March 25, 2013-Correspondence i MAR 2 4 4 � Agenda Correspondence n Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk €:rt:e 01, sAn I. €lrs Omspo 990 Urn Street AGFNDA San LUIS ObISPO, CA 9�4()j CORRESPONDENCE tel j £305,78a.7102 Date _:5 From: Sharon Whitney [mailto:whitney.sharon @ gmaii.com] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:31 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Town Hall Meeting March 25, 2013—Correspondence Regarding My Anticipated Comments at Town Hall Meeting March 25, 2014 Ludwick Center, 6 -9 pm Dear Council Members, Honorable Mayor, and Staff, My name is Sharon Whitney. I live 1 block from Cal Poly's planned project site called "Student Housing South." I support Cal Poly's 2001 Master Plan to build more on- campus student housing. However, because of serious analytical omissions I oppose its proposed amendment as laid out in its DEIR for which comments are due March 31. In line with this opposition, I support the City's January 24 letter to the Board of Trustees commenting on the DEIR. Thank you for hosting this town hall meeting and to staff for facilitating it. Thank you Derek Johnson and Kim Murry for your work related to the January 24 letter to the Board of Trustees. 1 I do believe that the January 24 letter resulted in an improved DEIR as re- circulated. However, serious problems remain. For example, the re- circulated DEIR omitted addressing two key statements made on page 2 of City's January 24 letter, subtitled "General Comments" and "Cumulative Impacts." Those are what I want to address here. At the same time, I am urging the City Council to direct staff to submit another letter to the Trustees in response to the re- circulated DEIR, strengthened if possible and framed by relevant California Supreme Court rulings about CEQA compliance, including the City of Marina and the City of San Diego. General Comments: This section of the City's January 24 letter points out that the proposed Master Plan amendment omits discussing the disposition of the identified existing housing sites. It suggests that unless the EIR includes that discussion there is a potentially significant adverse cumulative impact on the City requiring mitigating measures. As I read it, the University's omission of that discussion hides a factor about potential growth inducement in the student population with the addition of the Housing South Project. The City indicates its willingness to engage in discussions to identify and mitigate these off -site impacts.I support the City on that point. • Cumulative Impacts: This section of the City's letter refers to Chapter 6 of the DEIR and related CEQA concerns for growth- inducing impacts. As the January 24 letter noted Cal Poly's President Jeffrey Armstrong announced on Sept 16, 2013 his intention to seek an enrollment increase of 4 -5 K students, bringing the total population to about 24 -25 K. Accordingly, the City asked Cal Poly to address the projected student population growth, as well as the projected growth in the surrounding community, in its cumulative impacts evaluation, referring Cal Poly to review the City's LUCE update and giving them its URL address. These two points suggest that no matter where Cal Poly chose to add its freshman dorm complex there is a growth- inducement factor in student population that it has failed to address, that it should have addressed, and could have addressed. Places where the analysis should appear, for example, include the Executive Summary, Table 4, with respect to "Master Plan Consistency" and "Cumulative Impacts," at Section 3.1.3, dealing with "Campus Enrollment," and again in Chapter 6, at page 268 referencing CEQA guidelines with respect to growth- inducement of a proposed project. Moreover, the re- circulated DEIR made no substantive reference to the City's LUCE update. It should have done this done in Chapter 7, titled "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting." I urge that the City Council to direct staff to resubmit a strengthened letter to the Board of Trustees in line with the above - identified points. Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Agenda Correspondence Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 990 Palm Street Sari LUIS Obispo, CA 9340' tel 1 8055 781'7202 Mejia, Anthony Monday, March 24, 2014 10:27 AM Kremke, Kate FW: Town Hall Meeting March 25-my 3 minute speech draft untitled- [1.2].html; My Town Hall Meeting Talk.doc From: janmarx @alumni.stanford.edu [ mailto :janmarx @alumni.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of ]an Marx Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:40 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Fwd: Town Hall Meeting March 25_my 3 minute speech draft ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: <sharongsharonwhitne .com> Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:37 PM Subject: Town Hall Meeting March 25—my 3 minute speech draft To: Jan Marx <ianmarxkstanfordalumni.org >, jan marx <jmarx ,slocity.org >, Jan Marx <janhmarxn mail.com >, cchristi <cchristi(asloc ___g >, cchristiansen <cchristiansengslocity.org >, Kathy Smith <mavourneen(a,charter.net >, kathy smith <ksmithna,slocity.org >, Dan Carpenter <dancarp54gcharter.net >, Dan Carpenter <dancarpslogyahoo.com >, dan carpenter <dcarpentgslocit�org >, John Ashbaugh <johnAjohnashbau hg com >, john ashbaugh <iashbau slocity.org> Cc: sharon <sharon(asharonwhitnecom >, Derek Johnson <djohnson(a,slocitg >, Kim Murry <kmurrynslocity.org> Dear Council Members, Staff, and other undisclosed recipients; Attached, please find my anticipated Town Hall Meeting speech for March 25. It is a bit technical, but necessary, in my opinion. If this needs to be directed to other members of the SLO City staff, please let me know. Thank you, Sharon G. Whitney, PhD Page 1 of 1 Dear Council Members, Staff, and other undisclosed recipients; Attached, please find my anticipated Town Hall Meeting speech for March 25. It is a bit technical, but necessary, in my opinion. If this needs to be directed to other members of the SLO City staff, please let me know. Thank you, Sharon G. Whitney, PhD file:/// C:/Users/kkremke /AppData/Local/ Microsoft / Windows /Temporary %20Internet %20F... 3/24/2014 Town Hall Meeting March 25, 2014 Ludwick Center, 6 -9 pm 1. Self- Intro: a. My name is Sharon Whitney. b. I live 1 block from Cal Poly's planned project site called "Student Housing South." c. I support Cal Poly's 2001 Master Plan to build more on- campus student housing. d. Because of serious analytical omissions I oppose its proposed amendment as laid out in its DEIR for which comments are due March 31. e. I support the City's January 24 letter to the Board of Trustees commenting on the DEIR. 2. Thank you: a. City Council for hosting this town hall meeting and to staff for facilitating it b. Derek Johnson and Kim Murry for your work related to the January 24 letter to the Board of Trustees. c. The Jan 24 letter resulted in an improved DEIR, as re- circulated. d. Nonetheless, serious problems remain. 3. My Purpose: a. I urge the City Council to direct staff to submit another letter to the Trustees in response to the re- circulated DEIR, strengthened if necessary and framed by relevant Supreme Court precedents, including the City of Marina and the City of San Diego. b. The re- circulated DEIR omitted addressing two key statements made on page 2 of City's Jan 24 letter, subtitled "General Comments" and "Cumulative Impacts." • General Comments: This section points out that the proposed Master Plan amendment omits discussing the disposition of the identified existing housing sites, and unless it includes that discussion there is a potentially significant adverse cumulative impact on the City requiring mitigating measures. The implication appears to be that there is a hidden factor of growth- inducement in the student population with the addition of the Housing South project. The City indicates its willingness to engage in discussions to identify and mitigate these off -site impacts. • Cumulative Impacts: This section refers to Chapter 6 of the DEIR and related CEQA concerns for growth- inducing impacts. As the Jan 24 letter noted Cal Poly's President Jeffrey Armstrong announced on Sept 16, 2013 his intention to seek an enrollment increase of 4 -5 K students, bringing the total population to about 24 -25 K. Accordingly, the City asked Cal Poly to address the projected student population growth, as well as the projected growth in the surrounding community, in its cumulative impacts evaluation, referring Cal Poly to review the City's LUCE update and giving them its URL address. 4. Conclusion: a. The re- circulated DEIR should have addressed the City's expressed concerns in its General Comments and Cumulative Impacts statements. It could have done so, for example, in the Executive Summary, Table 4, with respect to "Master Plan Consistency" and "Cumulative Impacts," at Section 3.1.3 dealing with "Campus Enrollment," and again in Chapter 6, at page 268 referencing CEQA guidelines with respect to growth - inducement of a proposed project. b. Moreover, the re- circulated DEIR made no substantive reference to the City's LUCE update, which it could have done in Chapter 7, titled "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting." c. Therefore, I urge that the City Council to direct staff to resubmit a strengthened letter to the Board of Trustees in line with the above - identified points.